Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28274 of 2018 Applicant :- Lukman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the first informant is taken on record.
Heard Sri Gaurav Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the first informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Lukman in Case Crime No. 648 of 2017, under Sections 366, 368, 120-B, 342, 376-D I.P.C., Police Station- Charthawal, District- Muzaffar Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the prosecutrix was having an affair with the co-accused Intezar and subsequently, on her own sweet will she ran away with Intezar to get their marriage solemnized. The applicant was not named in the first information report, however, in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix, the allegation against the applicant is that after entering in the house of the prosecutrix, applicant forced her to take rupees six lacs and some jewellery along with her and then she was kidnapped on pistol point. Subsequently, she was raped by applicant and other co-accused Ushman. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that except applicant all other co-accused have been enlarged on bail. Co-accused Ushman has also been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28141 of 2018 by this Court on 27.07.2018. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 14.12.2017, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that there is consistent allegation of rape against the applicant of kidnapping the prosecutrix and also of intimidation to the prosecutrix for taking rupees six lacs and some jewellery with her and also rape against him in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, they could not dispute that in the statement of prosecutrix, allegation of rape has been levelled not only against the applicant but against 3-4 other co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant-Lukman be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
However, considering the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 14.12.2017, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of aforesaid case and conclude the same in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Vikas/-