Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17526 of 2017 Applicant :- Deepu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava,Piyush Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Piyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further submission is that applicant did not entice away the prosecutrix Km.Arti nor sexually abused her, as a matter of fact, prosecutrix who is major, had gone with the applicant with her sweet will and was a consenting party as is evident from her statement under section 161,Cr.P.C. It is submitted that had the applicant enticed away the prosecutrix then she would have certainly raised alarm while being taken to Varanasi and Jammu.Further submission is that prosecutrix has given a false statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. being under pressure of her family. This is also the submission that prosecution story does not find support from the medical evidence. Learned counsel has next contended that the co-accused Deepak, who is alleged to have enticed away another victim namely, Tara has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20454 of 2016, copy of which order has been produced before this Court and is taken on record. Learned counsel further submits that applicant has no criminal history nor there is possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted. The applicant is in jail since 19.02.2016.
Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer saying prosecutrix is minor and she has supported prosecution version in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the statements of prosecutrix made under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and with commenting upon merit of the case, I find it to be a fit and proper case for enlargement on bail.
Let applicant Deepu, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 219 of 2016,under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342, 120-B IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act 2012, Police Station-Robertsganj, District- Sonebhadra, 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 not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
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 S.Ali