Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15858 of 2021 Applicant :- Malti Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Malti Devi, in connection with Case Crime No. 223 of 2016 under Sections 363, 366, 368, 328 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Paschim Shareera, District Kaushambi.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that in the first information report, it is disclosed by the first informant that his minor daughter, the prosecutrix was enticed away by Mandhir and Mandhir's mother, Nathuniya Devi. It is also said in the FIR that the prosecutrix carried away with her ornaments and cash in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-. By contrast in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has made it out to be a case of kidnapping, where Dipendra son of Shivraj Prajapati and Arjun son of Pahadi are said to have forcibly taken away the prosecutrix against her will, dragging her across a field and then boarding her on to a car, driven by Shivraj. The car is said to have amongst its occupants, co- accused Nathuniya and her husband Subhash. All these perpetrators are said to have carried the prosecutrix in the vehicle to Karvi. It is in Karvi that Subhash called his sister's son Rahul, where Ramu, Dipendra and Arjun also arrived and took away the prosecutrix by train to Rajkot. A room was rented at Rajkot. There, she is said to have been ravished. From Rajkot, she was re-conveyed by train to Karvi, where Jitendra, co-accused left the prosecutrix at Karvi. Ramu took the prosecutrix to his home and stayed there. The applicant, who is Ramu's mother, locked the prosecutrix in a room. It is asserted that there is an unexplained contradiction between the FIR version and the prosecutrix's statement. It is, particularly argued that co-accused Subhash, Shivraj, Mandhir and Dipendra have been admitted to bail by this Court vide orders dated 22.10.2019, 06.01.2020, 25.04.2017 and 27.08.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 43788 of 2019, 147 of 2020, 14749 of 2017 and 20175 of 2020 in that order. It is urged that the applicant, who has been assigned a marginal role, is entitled to bail on the foot of parity, also. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 24.02.2021.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that there is a gross contradiction between the FIR version and the prosecutrix's case under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the fact that co-accused have been admitted to bail, the fact that the applicant is a woman and has no criminal history, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant, Malti Devi, in connection with Case Crime No. 223 of 2016 under Sections 363, 366, 368, 328 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Paschim Shareera, District Kaushambi. be released on bail on executing her personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the Trial Court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(viii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the prosecution would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 5.4.2021 Deepak