Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32161 of 2019 Applicant :- Chandan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Chauhan,Shiva Kant Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Pradeep Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Chandan seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 200 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
At the very out set learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to the bail rejection order passed by the court below and on the basis thereof he submits tht the date of birth of the prosecutrix, as recorded in the High School certificate, is 7.7.2002, as such, the prosecutrix was aged more than 16 years of age on the date of the alleged incident. Consequently, in view of the above, the mandatory provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. are not required to be complied with in the present case.
In respect of an incident which allegedly occurred on 10.6.2019 the FIR dated 12.6.2019 was lodged by Smt. Lalsa Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0200 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh. In the aforesaid FIR one Sudhir Chaudhari was alone nominated as named accused.
As per the prosecution story, as unfolded in the FIR, it is alleged that the prosecutrix went alone on 10.6.2019. It is apprehended by the first informant that the prosecutrix has been made to elope with Sudhir Chaudhari.
Subsequently to the FIR dated 12.6.2019 the prosecutrix was recovered on 15.6.2019. Thereafter her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15.6.2019 followed by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 26.6.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the above mentioned case crime number. The applicant is in jail since 26.6.2019. It is then submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR.
As per the statement of the prosecutrix, as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the prosecutrix was a consenting party in the alleged criminality.
In the aforesaid premise it is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the factual and legal submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Chandan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Manish Tripathi