Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41593 of 2018 Applicant :- Hannan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Hannan in connection with Case Crime No. 202 of 2018 under Sections 376, 452, 504 and 506 IPC P.S. Paniyara, District Maharajganj.
Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that though he is nominated in the FIR and in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but there is an estranged background between two families on account of a quarrel between the children of the two families that led to proceedings under Section 107/16 IPC being initiated against both parties. It is submitted that the due to the aforesaid dispute, the prosecutrix has come up with a false allegation seeking to implicate the applicant in a serious and heinous offences falsely. In support of the fact that the allegation of rape is ex facie false, learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the fact that the daughter of the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has said that on the day of occurrence when she heard her mother shouting, she rushed towards the verandah and found that her mother and the accused were fighting. However, on seeing her family members join her, the accused made good his escape. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant submits that had it been a case of rape, the applicant would have done the ill-deed and immediately escaped. He would not have engaged in a verbal altercation with the victim. It is also pointed out that in the medico legal examination report dated 28.08.2018, it has been recorded by the doctor and duly authenticated by the prosecutrix that she declined to undergo any medical examination external or internal which, in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, should be prima facie read to draw an adverse inference against her about the allegation of rape.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation of rape is consistent against the applicant in the FIR and also in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the fact and conduct of the prosecutrix reported by her daughter in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where the prosecutrix was seen to quarrel with the accused, the fact that she refused to undergo medical examination of any kind but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Hannan involved in Case Crime No. 202 of 2018 under Sections 376, 452, 504 and 506 IPC P.S. Paniyara, District Maharajganj be released on bail on executing a 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 Deepak