Heard Mr. Ken Singh, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for informant.
Perused the record.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant are taken on record.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2020, under section 376, 342, 325, 506 IPC, P.S. Etmadpur, District Agra.
In respect of an incident who is alleged to have occurred on 12.8.2020 and 14.8.2020, the victim lodged a delayed F.I.R. dated 16.8.2020, which was registered as Case Crime No. 190 of 2020, under sections 376, 342, 325, 506 IPC, P.S. Etmadpur, District Agra. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons Shri Kishan (applicant herein), Jaidayal and Rajendra Singh have been nominated as the named accused. As per the prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R. dated 16.8.2020 applicant who is jeth of victim is alleged to have committed rape on her. It is further alleged that victim was locked inside a room on 13./14.8.2020 and some how she was able to inform the Police on 16.8.2020.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of four days but the delay has not been explained. Learned counsel for applicant invited the attention of the Court to the medico legal report of the victim and on the basis thereof he contends that medical evidence does not support the prosecution case insofar it relates to an offence regarding the modesty of prosecutrix. It is lastly submitted that applicant is Jeth of the victim. He is in jail since 28.10.2020. Applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. There is matrimonial dispute between victim and her husband. Applicant has been unnecessarily dragged in litigation. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with witnesses and, in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state and upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and dictum of Apex Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Shri Krishna @ Bandar be released on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2020, under section 376, 342, 325, 506 IPC, P.S. Etmadpur, District Agra on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date 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.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 Arshad