Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17788 of 2019 Applicant :- Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Vishvakarma
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shoiab Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Krishna with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.74 of 2019, under Sections 354-Kha I.P.C., Section 3(1)da, dha of S.C./S.T. Act and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Highway, District Mathura.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics. It is argued that as per version of FIR, on 25.01.2019 at about 6.00 o'clock while the victim had gone to attend nature's call she was caught hold by the applicant and was sexually assaulted, due to which she became unconscious and after regaining her sense she narrated the whole story to her mother and thereafter the FIR has been lodged under Section 376 I.P.C. It is argued that as per medical report, no external or internal injury was found on her body. There are variations in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is argued that in C.D. Parch No.V it is mentioned that on the day of incident, i.e. 25.01.2019 the informant and victim were seen talking with the applicant and some hot talks were exchanged between them, due to which the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. It is next contended that applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.02.2019. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 has held that "it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. Seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Anand Sri./-