Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44432 of 2018 Applicant :- Dileep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
An affidavit of compliance filed today on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Firozabad is taken on record. The explanation offered is accepted.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Dileep, in Case Crime No.26 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 354 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station, Khairgarh, District Firozabad.
Heard Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Avanish Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the age of the prosecutrix, according to the medico legal estimation is about 18 years as would be evident from the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer dated 19.5.2018 based on an ossification test. As such, she is a major, where the provisions of the POCSO Act are not attracted. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, on account of the fact that she went away being annoyed with her family members, with Dileep (the applicant). Learned counsel has taken the Court through the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., where it is clearly said that the prosecutrix left home because she was slapped by her father and went to Surat. She went along with the applicant because he is known to her well, and, they are family friends. There is no allegation of rape against the applicant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., or in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that prima facie the prosecutrix is an adult and there is no allegation of rape against the applicant in the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., 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 Dileep, in Case Crime No.26 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 354 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station, Khairgarh, District Firozabad 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 :- 29.11.2018 NSC