Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35026 of 2018 Applicant :- Gangadhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Purushottam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S.Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
According to the prosecution version the complainant lodged FIR against the accused-applicant, who is her step father alleging that the accused used to torture her and commit vulgar activities with her.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that the victim has specifically stated in her statemetn recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. that nothing sort of indecent act has been committed with her and she had lodged false report. Thus, there is material contradiction in the statements recorded under sections 161 Cr.P.C. & 164 Cr.P.C. It is a case of counter blast. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 9.7.2018. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram
Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Gangadhar involved in Case Crime No. 332 of 2018, under Sections 354, 354-A I.P.C. & 8 POCSO Act P.S Cantt., District- Bareilly be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence 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 applicants to prison.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible from the date of production of certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018(SC) 2004.
Order Date :- 17.9.2018 IA