Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52351 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt Lakhshmi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is the neighbour of the victim. The allegation against him is that the victim was abducted from her house by co-accused, Wasif. He brought her to the neighbour's house after climbing the wall, where the victim alleged that she suspects that she was subjected to rape by co-accused, Wasif. In her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has not made any clear allegation of rape nor any sign of rape was found by the doctor. The age of the victim was found to be 16 years. Given margin of two years on higher side she can been considered to be major. The applicant alleges false implication in this case. The applicant is elderly woman and she is in jail since 14.08.2019 and has no criminal history to her credit.
Per contra, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant, submitted that after the rape was committed on the victim by the co-accused Wasif, she has committed suicide and first information report in this regard under Section 306 I.P.C has been lodged on 10.08.2019. It has been submitted that the role of the applicant is apparent from the allegation made in the first information report and she withheld victim in her house after she was brought in by co-accused Wasif and therefore, allegations against her are well founded.
Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
Learned counsel for the applicant has rejoined and has submitted that from the perusal of the first information report under Section 306 I.P.C none of the accuseds of this case are implicated. Nilofer, Munna Baba, Sambhav are three accuseds, none of whom are involved in this case. It has been submitted that the applicant and other accuseds were falsely implicated by the father of the victim through his daughter on account of dispute between them, who are neighbours.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted herein above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Smt. Lakhshmi, involved in Case Crime No.119 of 2019, under Sections 366-A, 342, 376-D, 328, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Rajpurwa, District- Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 SS