Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27799 of 2018 Applicant :- Munish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Advocates have jointly filed their vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.
Perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that according to the medical examination, the age of the victim-girl has been found to be 18-19 years and actually she was a major girl at the time of incident and her age in the document was shown wrongly on the lower side which completely stands belied by the radiological examination. Further submission is that when the victim was examined by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,she gave the version that her mother wanted to marry her with somebody whom she did not like and who was much elder in age to suit her and, therefore, she wanted to have marriage with the applicant. No allegation of coercion or deceit was alleged against the applicant before the Magistrate. Further submission is that in view of the age indicated by the medical examination and in view of complete denial of any allegations of coercion against the applicant, a prima facie case for bail in favour of the applicant is made out. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 22.4.2018 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Munish involved in Case Crime No. 100 of 2018, u/ss 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Bagwala, District- Etah be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 CPP/-