Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39259 of 2018 Applicant :- Munnalal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Counter affidavit filed today by learned AGA in compliance with order of this Court dated 10.10.2018 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA along with Sri Mayank Awasthi, appearing on behalf of State.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Munnalal in connection with Case Crime No. 385 of 2018, under Sections 376, 511, 506 IPC, P.S. Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR has been authored by the prosecutrix wherein the categorical allegation is one of attempted rape but not accomplished. He pointed out that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has improved her case to make it into one of rape. It is further, argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that he is a step brother to the prosecutrix's husband. There are property issues between parties inasmuch as the applicant's father died while he was young and his mother re-married one Bhoop Ram the father of the prosecutrix's husband, and, the applicant's step-father. The entire property of the applicant's late step-father was inherited by his widow Ramsri and the three step brothers' of the applicant. However, Ramsri by a registered will bequeathed her one-fourth share to the applicant thus, placing him at par with his step brothers. It is submitted that this has caused a lot of heart burn with the husband of the prosecutrix, though not the other step brothers. This Court vide order dated 10.10.2018 had required the learned AGA to verify the aforesaid background of the claimed relationship between parties, and, also issues over property.
In the counter affidavit filed, today, the relationships as alleged have been confirmed by the State as also the division of property though, it is said that the husband of the prosecutrix does not bear any grudge on that account.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant however, emphatically is that it is this property issue that is the cause of all this incredible allegation against him to which there is not a grain of truth.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that in the FIR the allegation is one of attempted rape whereas that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. an allegation of rape has been introduced.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the relationship between parties, the issues of property between them and the change in the stand of the prosecutrix, between the FIR authored by her to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Munnalal involved in Case Crime No.
385 of 2018, under Sections 376, 511, 506 IPC, P.S. Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur be released on bail on executing a 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.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Neeraj