Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39274 of 2018 Applicant :- Pawan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shudeer Kumar Pathak, learned AGA along with Sri Rohit Pandey, appearing on behalf of State.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Pawan in connection with Case Crime No.417 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376, 328 and 506 IPC, P.S. Khekda, District- Baghpat.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix and the applicant are at some issue over a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- that the applicant lent to the prosecutrix for construction of her dilapidated house that he has been demanding back. It is argued that in order to browbeat the applicant, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR giving rise to the present crime wherein she has alleged that the applicant intruded into her house and attempted to ravish her. She has not said in that information that the applicant ravished her. It is pointed out that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police also the allegation is of an attempt, but in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has come up with an allegation of rape by the applicant. It is argued that the prosecution has improved its case from the FIR to the stage of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which in the background of issues between parties, renders the prosecution case suspect. It is also argued that the medico legal examination report also does not bear out with the prosecution case.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer and submits that there is a categorical allegation of rape against the applicant by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but does not dispute the fact that in the FIR and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the allegation is one of attempt alone.
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 improvement to the prosecution case and variation between the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix and her 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 Pawan involved in Case Crime No.417 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376, 328 and 506 IPC, P.S. Khekda, District-Baghpat 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 :- 31.10.2018 Neeraj