Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8656 of 2019 Applicant :- Chunmun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Milan Dwivedi,Anil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was lodged by the informant on 30.12.2014 for the incident alleged to have taken place between 24.12.2014 to 30.12.2014 in which it has been alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 16 years had been enticed away by the applicant and she has returned back to her house on 30.12.2014 thereafter she narrated that the applicant committed rape on her and threatened to kill her. It is further contended that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 30.12.2014 in which she has stated that the applicant enticed her and committed rape on her for two days in the hospital. The victim was medically examined on 31.12.2014 in which no mark of injury or no sign of rape was detected. It is further contended that in medical examination the age of the victim was determined as between 16/18 years. Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 7.1.2015. It is further contended that the allegations made in the FIR are absolutely false baseless and vague in nature and the FIR has been lodged with malacious intention to rope in the applicant. It is further contended that the proceedings in trial court has already been commenced but the victim is not attending the Court to record her statement. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.12.2014. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail however, he could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment;
as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Chunmun be released on bail in Case Crime No.182 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, & section 6 of POCSO Act 2012 P.S.-Tindwari, District-Banda, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Harshita