Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1996 of 2019 Applicant :- Laddua @ Lekhraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There are material contradictions in the statements of the victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The F.I.R. of the alleged incident has been lodged after a gap of almost 22 hours. There is no satisfactory explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. In medical report, the age of victim has been shown about 17 years. There is no public witness of the alleged incident. The prosecution story appears to be highly improbable. In fact a perusal of the site plan indicates that the room in which the alleged incident has taken place was inside the house whereas Smt. Saroj and Priti were sleeping in the varamdah which was outside the room and in view of the same it is highly improbable that the applicant would have been able to enter the room of the prosecutrix. In fact, the applicant and the prosecutrix were friendly with each other and on the date of incident the applicant had visited the house of the prosecutrix in the absence of her family members but unfortunately he was seen going out of the house by some neighbours who complained to the mother of the prosecutrix after which the informant just to protect the dignity of the family got an absolutely false F.I.R. registered against the applicant. The prosecutrix herself refused for medical examination. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 29.9.2018.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that at the time of alleged incident the victim was minor aged about 14 years. The victim in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution version. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Laddua @ Lekhraj involved in Case Crime No.1135 of 2018, under Section 376, 511 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Highway District Mathura be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and he will cooperate with the trial.
3. The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Gss