Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40954 of 2018 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Chandra Misra, learned AGA along with Sri Rohit Pandey, appearing for the State.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Pradeep Kumar in connection with Case Crime No.268 of 2016, under Section 376, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 66-E, 67 Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecution case in the FIR is exclusively directed against Ashok Kumar, a friend of her husbands, who is said to have given her false information about her husband and by misleading her about the plans of her husband, managed to establish physical relations with her. It is said in the FIR that when she demanded of the co-accused, Ashok Kumar that he marry her, Ashok Kumar refused to do so. Co-accused Ashok Kumar and the husband of the prosecutrix are both employed in the Indian Army. The FIR alleges a case of cheating and rape against Ashok Kumar alone, with no blame, or a hint of it against her husband. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and, lateron, in the ongoing trial, the prosecutrix, in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, has generically changed the prosecution case while directing the main allegations away from Ashok Kumar to her husband. It is said her husband prompted Ashok Kumar to come over his house, on the pretext of collecting his uniform. It is alleged, in the altered story, at this stage that her husband emerged from his place of concealment as he was hiding in the house at that time Ashok Kumar came to fetch his uniform from the prosecutrix. He beat up Ashok Kumar, and, the prosecutrix, forced Ashok Kumar to ravish her and shot a video clip as evidence for securing a divorce. The applicant is the prosecutrix's husband.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Ashok Kumar who was the unqualified accused in the FIR has been portrayed as a victim, subsequently, by the prosecutrix along side her, and, the husband has been projected as the accused. It is submitted that such a gross contradiction in the basic fabric of the prosecution case makes it not only unbelievable but incredible. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking to the aforesaid facts, no case is made out against the applicant, and, he is entitled to bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that between the FIR and the subsequent statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition in the witness box on the basis of which the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., there is a change of stand.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment in particular, the complete change of the prosecution case between the FIR, the subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and testimony during trial 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 Pradeep Kumar involved in Case Crime No.268 of 2016, under Section 376, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 66-E, 67 Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha 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 :- 27.10.2018 Neeraj