Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38132 of 2018 Applicant :- Gulab Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Gulab in Special Case No.12 of 2018 (State Vs. Gulab), pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Azamgarh arising out of Case Crime No. 395 of 2017, under Sections 376,452, 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA along with Sri Mayank Awasthi, appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though the prosecutrix and the informant have indicted the applicant in the FIR, and, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in the ongoing trial, the deposition of the prosecutrix has been one that disowns the prosecution story. It has been categorically averred that someone has ravished her, but it was not the applicant Gulab, who is present in Court. She was confronted that her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., to which she said that she never made that statement. Being confronted with the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., by the prosecution, she said that the said statement was given under pressure of the police and her family. Learned counsel for the applicant has also invited the attention of the Court to the deposition of the first informant, the mother of the prosecutrix. She has supported the prosecution case in the examination-in-chief on 4.10.2018 in the ongoing Special Case No.12 of 2018, but in her cross-examination, she has refuted her version saying that it was not the applicant, who was intruder that night, who ravished her daughter. It has been mentioned that there was hostility between the applicant Gulab and the prosecutrix, on account of which he was named. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking to the aforesaid stand of the prosecutrix and the first informant in their evidence recorded during the ongoing trial, there is no justification to keep the applicant in further detention pending trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the first informant and the prosecutrix have categorically supported the prosecution case in the FIR and the statement under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., and 164 Cr.P.C., who appears to be shifting the stand to help the accused now. It is, however, not denied in point of fact that the prosecutrix, and, the first informant, in their evidence do not support the prosecution story.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, in particular, the deposition of the prosecutrix and the first informant during the ongoing trial in the witness box, 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 Gulab in Special Case No.12 of 2018 (State Vs. Gulab), pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Azamgarh arising out of Case Crime No. 395 of 2017, under Sections 376,452, 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh 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 :- 29.10.2018/NSC