Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23667 of 2019 Applicant :- Nandlal Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nafees Ahmad, learned counsel for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Nandlal Rajbhar with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.232 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per version of FIR, on 23.07.2018 while the informant along with his wife went to their fields and their daughter Poonam and her cousin Ramta were getting ready to go to school then co- accused Harendra Rajbhar persuaded them to go along with him. After receiving the information on mobile of the informant's son, the girls had been brought back home after which they narrated the whole story then the FIR has been lodged on 01.08.2018. It is argued that as per version of FIR there is no allegation of sexual assault against the applicant. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also there is nothing to show that the girls were being sexually assaulted by the applicant. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim Ramta has stated that no wrong has been committed by the applicant. The statement of the victim Poonam was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has stated that the applicant under pretext to marry her has sexually assaulted her, however, her cousin has not stated that the applicant has committed any offence. There are variations in the version of FIR as well as statements of the prosecutrix Poonam recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. which shows that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Co- accused Harendra Rajbhar, who has been assigned the role of taking away the victims, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.43253 of 2018. Accordingly, the applicant is also entitled for bail. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility 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 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2018. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties 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, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 7.6.2019 Anand Sri./-