Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44079 of 2018 Applicant :- Mohd. Ahmad @ Chhutki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is not named in FIR lodged on 21.08.2017 by father of deceased with averments that 11 years old Faizan left home at about 02:00 p.m. and his dead body was found at 08:30 p.m. on 31.08.2017 in the abandoned Khandhar of late Sushil Gupta; that in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the mother, brothers and sisters of deceased, it was alleged that deceased had gone to the house of Farhad, son of applicant for flying kites; that on 24.08.2017 statements of Irfan (mama of deceased), Junaid (cousin brother of deceased) and Mangla Saini were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have stated that on 22.08.2017 when they were sitting together, applicant made an extra judicial confession before them with regard to the fact that he had taken some sex booster medicines and attempted unnatural sex with Faizan but failed and when Faizan tried to escape, he shaked the ladder, on which, he was climbing upon which he fell on the ground and died; that it is absolutely wrong to say that applicant consumed any sex boosting medicines or made any extra judicial confession before Irfan, Junain or Mangla Saini of his alleged attempt or committing unnatural intercourse on deceased; that entire prosecution story developed during investigation is absolutely false and incorrect; that alleged extra judicial confession is not admissible in evidence; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 26.08.2017.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Mohd. Ahmad @ Chhutki be released on bail in Case Crime No. 636 of 2017 under Sections 302, 377, 511, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act 2012, P.S. Kankarkhera District Meerut on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 M. ARIF