Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8630 of 2019 Applicant :- Mahesh Alias Majuka Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the FIR was lodged on 24.09.2018 at 17:39 p.m. levelling allegations against two persons including the present applicant and same has been registered as Case Crime No. 446 of 2018, under Section 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh; that according to the prosecution case, the alleged incident took place on 17.07.2018 at about 8.00 a.m. and the FIR was lodged after two months after the alleged incident and no prudent explanation was given by the prosecution for lodging the FIR at belated stage; that statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 24.09.2018 in which she has levelled the allegations of rape against the present applicant; that the victim was medically examined and she was found pregnant of 16 weeks and 5 days; that her statement was recorded on 01.10.2018 in which she levelled allegations of rape against both the accused persons; that thus, the prosecutrix/victim has changed her version at different levels; that the present applicant is doing a private job in Kumkum Enterprises C/o Hema Engineering Industries Ltd. Bawal at Noida and from the attendance register of the applicant, it is crystal clear that on the date of alleged incident, the applicant was performing his duty from 08.51 a.m. till 16.31 p.m. in the evening; that the allegations leveled against the applicant are false, fabricated, frivolous with malafide intention; that the applicant has no previous criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in judicial custody since 30.11.2018.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. It has been contended that victim is minor and she has fully supported the prosecution version. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without adverting into the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Mahesh @ Majuka be released on bail in Case Crime No. 449 of 2018, under Sections 354, 505, 376-D I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Atrauli, District Aligarh on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 T.S.