Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50121 of 2019 Applicant :- Mithlesh Verma @ Mithlesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harikesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satendra Bahadur Yati
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
List has been revised.
No one appears on behalf of the informant to oppose the prayer for bail.
Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mithlesh @ Mihlesh Verma, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2019, under Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC, and section 3/4 of Prevention of children From Sexual Offences Act Police Station Pooranpur, District- Pilibhit, during pendency of trial.
Submission is that the age of the victim as per medical report is 18-19 years. It has been submitted that victim willingly eloped with the applicant and went to different places. From the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that she is consenting party and went with the appellant on her free will without raising alarm and making any complaint. The statement of the victim does not corroborates the prosecution case. The Apex Court in the case of Rajak Mohd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1395 of 2015 vide order dated 23.08.2018 has held that where the prosecutrix lived with the accused and freely moved around with the accused where she came across many people at different points of time but never complained of any criminal act, the conviction of the accused under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C was held to be unwarranted in law. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is in jail since 22.07.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that as per transfer certificate of class V of the victim her date of birth is 20.03.2005. She is minor and therefore, the applicant does not deserves to be enlarged on bail.
After hearing rival contentions it appears that there is difference between the age of the victim from her transfer certificate and medical report. The Apex Court in the case of Suhani and another Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 Law Suit (SC) 1364 has held that the medical report will prevail on the school certificate.
In the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 SS