Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5353 of 2018 Applicant :- Dimple Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Faisal Khan,Anand Ji Mishra,Kaushal Kumar Pandey,Manoj Vashisth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Dimple in Case Crime No.1165 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Heard Sri Manoj Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is pointed out that the prosecutrix by the medical estimation of her age, is aged about 18 years, that makes her a major. It is submitted that the case at best is one of consent but under the pressure of the family and the police, the prosecutrix in her statement has given an inculpatory account of the occurrence, where the applicant is alleged to have carried her away by force on his motorcycle from Khatuali to Delhi, housed her somewhere in Anand Vihar and ravished her there. Lateron, he left her at Chhawani Railway Station Meerut. It is said that there the uncle of the applicant Sompal came looking for the applicant and the prosecutrix, and, finding the prosecutrix handed her over to the Ratanpuri police. Thus, according to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she was recovered by Sompal, uncle of the applicant and handed over to Ratanpuri police, where it is also said that she remained at the police station for two to three days. It is pointed out that by contrast in her account to the doctor, where she was medically examined in a consent statement recorded in confidence, the prosecutrix has told a story that is at complete variance with her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and, is absolutely exculpatory. The statement of the prosecutrix to the doctor recorded on 1.9.2017 is to the following effect:-
^^ihfM+rk ds vuqlkj 29 rkjh[k dks lqcg 9-00 cts eSa Ldwy ls fudydj cl }kjk fnYyh ¼vkuUn fogkj½ igqWph ogkW ij eq>s fMEiy feyk eSa vkSj fMEiy Nov ls ,d nwljs ls I;kj djrs Fks] 28 rkjh[k esa fMEiy us eq>s vkuUn fogkj vkus dks dgk Fkk] Qksu ij gekjh ckr gqbZ Fkh] ogkW ls ge vkxjk pys x;sA ogkW 2&3 ?k.Vs cl LVS.M ij cSBs fQj cl ls okil esjB vk x;s] ogkW jsyos ij 2&3 ?k.Vs cSBdj eSa fQj vdsyh [krksyh vk x;h] esjs lkFk dksbZ xyr dke ugha gqvkA** It is also pointed out that the police in the recovery memo drawn during investigation have shown that the prosecutrix was recovered on the information of a police informer, while she was standing on the Khatauli bus stand. It is submitted that there is a contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix and also about the manner in which she was recovered, showing the case clearly to be one where the prosecutrix has eloped with the applicant, of her free will, and, lateron, under pressure of the family and the police, has given an inculpatory account that cannot be, prima facie, believed.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the prosecutrix has clearly given an account in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that shows the applicant's complicity. However, the account given by the prosecutrix to the doctor and recorded in his report dated 1.9.2017 is not refuted by the learned AGA.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the sharply varying accounts of the occurrence, given by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and that given out to the doctor during her medico legal examination, besides the gross discrepancy in the manner of recovery of the prosecutrix, 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 Dimple in Case Crime No.1165 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar 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 :- 30.10.2018 NSC