Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Lakshya vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|31 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10222 of 2019 Applicant :- Lakshya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Tripathi I Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Dixit
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.272/2018, under Sections 363, 354-A(1), 376-D, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Simbhawali, District Hapur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to prosecution version informant's daughter aged about 16 years went away from the house between 1:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. in the intervening night on 3/4.11.2018. Due to becoming fail in Class-10th, she was mentally disturbed, after going a suicide note has been found on her bed mentioned therein. She has a mobile phone in which two sims of Vodaphone No.9927245893 and 9084937440 are with her. He submits that first information report was registered under Section 363 I.P.C. and after investigation, Investigating Officer found the matter of teasing with the victim, therefore, offence under Section 354-A was added. The victim has refused for her medical examination. In the Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has disclosed the name of Lakshya, Deepak, Abhishek and Guddu and in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she told that Lakshya and Deeptak had taken away her. He has further submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence, due to complaint made by uncle of the applicant regarding encroachment of public utility land by father of the victim, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Co-accused Deepak has been granted bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13486 of 2019. There is no possibility of the applicant 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. It is next contended that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 15.11.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail prayer and submitted that in high school certificate the date of birth of the victim is mentioned 01.08.2002. According to which on the date of incident she was 16 years and three months old. In the bail application of co-accused Deepak, it was contended that applicant Lakshya was friendly with prosecutrix. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Lakshya 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 :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper or pressurize the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
3. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Jitendra
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Lakshya vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
31 July, 2019
Judges
  • Ali Zamin
Advocates
  • Rakesh Tripathi I