Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7228 of 2019 Applicant :- Mewaram @ Mewalal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- A Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri A.Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sheetal Prasad learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix has took stand in the dock as PW-2, in the ongoing trial being S.T. No. 186 of 2016, State vs. Meva Lal, where she has not at all supported the prosecution version in her examination-in-chief. She said that she was not ravished at all by the applicant. She has acknowledged that she went with her mother to the temple where the applicant was doing some occult or other faith healing remedies, but she was never ravished. She said that she never made any statement to the police, or to the doctor, that she was ravished. However, regarding her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has said that she made the said statement and signed it. She was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution which she has withstood. She was also cross examined by the defence, where she has said that the statement made to the Magistrate was under bidding of "Daroga Ji". She has categorically said that the accused, present in Court, Gyan Singh and Meva Lal (applicant) did not meet her in the temple or ravish her. It is also pointed out that the Court also asked some questions to the prosecutrix in response to which she said that she does not know the applicant or co-accused, Gyan Singh. She has denied the fact that she went along with her mother and applicant to seek any occult remedy. She has said in answer to a question by the Court that no one ravished her, and that no occurrence took place. She has said that her mother forcibly got this case registered with the police. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the stand of the prosecutrix, no case for further detention of the applicant pending trial is made out. Learned counsel for the applicant has next contended that the co-accused namely, Gyan Singh whose first bail application no. 37369 of 2018 has been rejected vide order dated 01.10.2018 but on the aforesaid contentions, the second bail application of said co-accused Gyan Singh has been granted by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.02.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5578 of 2019, copies of both the orders have been produced before this Court and are taken on record. It is thus contended that the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 05.07.2018. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 05.07.2018.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that so far as the dock evidence of the prosecutrix is concerned, it is exculpatory but this Court cannot look into it as that is within the province of the trial court.
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 deposition of the prosecutrix that is prima facie exculpatory, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Mewaram @ Mewa Lal involved in Sessions Trial No. 186 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 124 of 2018 under Section 376D I.P.C., Police Station Poonch, District Jhansi be released on bail on executing his 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.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant 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 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 :- 27.2.2019 S.Ali