Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37750 of 2018 Applicant :- Beerbal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.P.S. Chahuan, learned AGA along with Sri Mayank Awasthi, appearing on behalf of State.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Beerbal in connection with Case Crime No.206 of 2016, under Sections 376D and 452 IPC, P.S. Ughaiti, District Budaun.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime at the instance of one Ankit Singh who had ravished his daughter along with others and is an accused in that case being Case Crime No.83 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Ughaiti, District Budaun. It is submitted that the prosecutrix of the present case is employed as a maid with the said Ankit Singh and in order to wriggle out of the said prosecution by bringing/pressure upon the applicant to withdraw from prosecution of the case relating to his daughter's rape by Ankit Singh, the prosecutrix has been set up to level false allegation leading to the present crime. There is an specific averment to the said affect in paragraph 11 of the affidavit that the prosecutrix of the present case is employed as a maid in the house of the Ankit Singh at whose behest she has come up with the present allegation. It is further, argued that the applicant is a respectable man otherwise, with no criminal history, but at the instance of Ankit Singh in order to build pressure upon the applicant she lodged an FIR against the applicant giving rise to Case Crime No.275 of 2017, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, P.S. Ughaiti, District Budaun. The applicant has been admitted to bail in the said case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.8/Special Judge POCSO Court, Baduan. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that all these cases are sponsored by Ankit Singh to browbeat the applicant into giving up prosecution of the case against Ankit Singh involving rape of the applicant's daughter.
Learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is, however, not denied that there is a history of criminal litigation where a case of rape, concerning the daughter of the applicant, is pending against Ankit Singh. Learned AGA is not in a position to deny the fact, whether, the prosecutrix works as a maid for Ankit Singh.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the background of the case involving Ankit Singh in a prosecution for rape where the daughter of the applicant is the prosecutrix, the fact that the prosecutrix in the present case has subsequent to the present FIR again got a case registered against the applicant, wherein he has been granted bail, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Beerbal involved in Case Crime No.206 of 2016, under Sections 376D and 452 IPC, P.S. Ughaiti, District Budaun be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Neeraj