Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2623 of 2019 Applicant :- Deependra Singh @ Deependra Singh Thakur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Deependra Singh @ Deependra Singh Thakur, in Case Crime No.451 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)Jha IPC, and Section 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba.
Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age, certified by the Chief Medical Officer, Mahoba vide his certificate dated 7.09.2018, she has been opined to be aged about 16 years. The aforesaid assessment is based on an ossification test and certain other parametres. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that giving the usual allowance for variation of two years, the prosecutrix would reckon to be a major and, therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act would not be attracted. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161, 164 Cr.P.C., and the statement made to the doctor which is a signed statement, carry varying accounts, but none of them are inculpatory. All of the three are exculpatory. In the statement to the doctor, the prosecutrix has acknowledged the fact and on 23.08.2018, in the morning hours, she went to Deependra, the applicant and went along with him to Kalpi. The two then proceeded to Rewa and thence to Ahmedabad. It is also said that the two married in a temple and lived together as man and wife. It is specifically said by the prosecutrix in the statement to the doctor that she was not ravished. There is no allegation of rape or anything inculpatory in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate, where also the prosecutrix has said that she moved along from one station to another with the applicant, but there is no mention of marriage there. Instead, it is said that the two were apprehended by the police at Ahmedabad. In the earliest statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., also it is specifically said that though she moved from one station to another with the applicant, the applicant did not do anything objectionable. In the additional statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has said that the two are in love and she went along with the applicant on 23.08.2018 to Ahmedabad. It is said that the two lived together as man and wife, and that she is in the family way, into the second month. Here also, it is said that the applicant never violated the prosecutrix.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Looking to the evidence appearing in the case, there is hardly anything inculpatory so as to detain the applicant, pending trial, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Deependra Singh @ Deependra Singh Thakur, in Case Crime No.451 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)Jha IPC, and Section 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba be released on bail on executing his 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 :- 21.1.2019 NSC