Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44972 of 2018 Applicant :- Guddi Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Guddi Devi in connection with Case Crime No. 440 of 2018, under Section 363,366,376-D, 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, police station Dhampur, District Bijnor.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA alongwith Sri Rajkumar Yadav appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime as there was a relationship between her son, Vishal and the prosecutrix, who wanted to marry her. It is pointed out that the role assigned to the applicant by the prosecutrix in the statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. besides that made to the doctor, is of asking the prosecutrix to marry her son, and, thereafter feeding her rice on account of which she fell unconscious and was thereafter driven off by the applicant's son, Vishal alongwith co-accused Anmol to Moradabad, where she was ravished by both of them. It is submitted that the role attributed to the applicant is of conspiracy, where admittedly the prosecutrix was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence. It is further argued that even otherwise the incident is doubtful as the time and manner of recovery described by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is different from that mentioned in the recovery memo. According to the prosecutrix, she was recovered by her father from Delhi where the co-accused, Anmol had taken her, whereas according to the police, she was recovered from Dhampur railway station, which makes the entire case doubtful.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is a woman whose role at best is one of conspiracy, and, some marginal involvement indicated, about which there is no prima facie evidence, where she was not present at the time of occurrence and also the fact that not only the manner but the place of recovery too is doubtful, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
It is made clear that the benefit of this order will not be available to the main accused Anmol and Aryan.
Let the applicant Guddi Devi involved in Case Crime No. 440 of 2018, under Section 363,366,376-D, 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, police station Dhampur, District Bijnor 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 :- 27.11.2018 BKM/-