Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46224 of 2019 Applicant :- Pankaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Shantam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Counter affidavit filed is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the age of the victim as per medical report is 16-17 years. She has admitted marrying the applicant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in Arya Samaj Temple. She wants to live with the applicant. She has not supported the allegation made in the FIR. The applicant is in jail since 08.07.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.
Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application along with learned A.G.A. on the ground that the date of birth of the victim is 01.06.2003 and therefore she was below 16 years at the time of alleged offence. He has further submitted that the victim being minor the applicant does not deserves to be enlarged on bail.
After considering the rival submissions this court finds that as per medical report she is aged about 16-17 years. Given margin of one year on the higher side she can be considered to be major. However there is difference of about a year in her educational certificate. The Apex Court in the case of Suhani & another vs. State of U.P. & others, 2018 LawSuit (SC) 1364 has accepted that medical report is more reliable as compared to the educational certificate. Even otherwise the question of genuineness of the high school certificate and the medical certificate shall be examined by the trial court during the trial.
After considering the rival submissions noted hereinabove, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the material brought on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant- Pankaj, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 174 of 2019, under Sections- 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Debai, District- Bulandshahar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-
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.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Rohit