Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41038 of 2018 Applicant :- Mahendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the jail date in the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged on 22.7.2016 after three months of the incident against three accused persons, namely Jeetu, Smt. Lilawati and Mahendra alleging that on 16.4.2016 the daughter of the complainant has informed the complainant that Jeetu has made sexual relation with the daughter of the complainant and she get pregnant. Later on, with the help of Smt. Lilawati and Mahendra they have forcibly aborted her.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused-Smt. Lilawati has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.8.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31558 of 2018 and the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused who has been enlarged on bail; hence the applicant is also entitled for the same benefit; applicant is languishing in jail since 5.9.2018 (about two months); the main allegation is against co-accused Jeetu; there is no allegation of rape against the applicant and on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. no allegation against the applicant has been made out under Section 376 I.P.C.; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the complainant was pressurized to marry his daughter with Jeetu because they were forcibly implicated and when he refused to marry, the present F.I.R. was lodged after thought and with due legal consultation.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused-Smt. Lilawati, who has been enlarged on bail.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Mahendra involved in Case Crime No. 770 of 2016, under Section 313, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO), P.S.-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on 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 appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The appellant 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 OP