Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Submission is that age of the victim as per medical report is 19 years. There is no allegation of rape against the applicant in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, second statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein also she has not alleged the offence of rape against the applicant. In the medical report hymen is intact and the doctor has not given opinion about rape. The applicant alleges false implication. He is in jail since 25.09.2019.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that in the statement recorded on the next date of recovery, she has clearly made allegation of rape against the applicant. As per high school certificate, the age of the victim is 15 years one month. Learned counsel for the informant has further pointed out that there is apprehension to the security of the victim, in case applicant is enlarged on bail. She has already made an application before SSP,, Sant Kabir Nagar in this regard. She has also getting threat from the people related to the applicant and therefore, there is apprehension to the security of the victim and her mother.
The Apex Court in the case of Suhani & another vs. State of U.P. & others, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 1364 has accepted that medical report is more reliable as compared to the educational certificate. Even otherwise the question of genuineness of the high school certificate and the medical certificate shall be examined by the trial court during the trial.
In view of the argument of the learned counsel for the informant and the security prayed to the victim and her mother, this Court directs S.S.P., Sant Kabir Nagar to provide security to the victim till the statements are recorded by the trial court within three days from the date she has made such an application before the S.S.P., Sant Kabir Nagar along with certified copy of this order.
Copy of the application made by the mother of the victim to the S.S.P., Sant Kabir Nagar on 29.10.2019 expressing apprehension to her security is taken on record.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted herein above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Maroof Sheikh, involved in Case Crime No.97 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Dharmsinghava, District- Sant Kabir Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. 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 them 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 complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 SS