Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48254 of 2018 Applicant :- Dhan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Tripathi,Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Dhan Singh, in Case Crime No.0063 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 376(Chha), 343, 120-B IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur.
Heard Sri Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the FIR or in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., his name has figured in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., not with any role of ravishing the prosecutrix, but by way of a passing mention at the end of the statement that when on the date of occurrence, she was taken by co- accused Savitri along with her to answer the call of nature, wherefrom she was abducted., the applicant stood guard. It is submitted that the said allegation apart from being of a marginal and doubtful involvement, that can hardly be proved, in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, is a motivated allegation, as Dhan Singh (the applicant) and the prosecutrix hail from the same family where there is a property dispute between them, over agricultural land relating to which, evidence has figured in the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, Smt. Janki. It is further submitted that co-accused Savitri, against whom there is an allegation of active participation in the act of abduction, as a prelude to rape, has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 27.8.2018, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.32197 of 2018 and, therefore, the applicant, whose role is far more marginal, is entitled to the benefit of parity.
Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Government General has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factum of parity.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the evidence appearing in the case, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the role of the applicant is nominal and marginal, of standing at the place the prosecutrix is said to have been abducted by the co- accused Savitri and taken to the place where she was allegedly ravished, the fact that co-accused Savitri, who is said to be involved in the abduction has been granted bail, 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 Dhan Singh, in Case Crime No.0063 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 376(Chha), 343, 120-B IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur 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 :- 18.12.2018 NSC