Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32073 of 2019 Applicant :- Pradeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Mishra,Moeez Uddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kashi Naresh Mishra
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ankur Tandon holding brief of Mr. Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Anurag Vajpaeyi who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant by filing his vakalatanama in court today which is taken on record.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Pradeep seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 340 of 2019 under Sections 452, 506, 376 I.P.C. P.S.- Dankaur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
In respect of one incident which is alleged to have occurred on 13.6.2019, an F.I.R. dated 15.6.2019 was lodged by Smt. Arvind Devi, the victim with the police of police station Dankaur and was registered as Case Crime No. 0340 of 2019 under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC, P.S. Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
According to the prosecution story, as unfolded in the FIR it is alleged by the prosecutrix that the applicant at around 12 p.m. jumped into her house and forcibly committed criminality upon her.
Subsequent to the FIR dated 15.6.2019 statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 19.6.2019 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. followed by the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 21.6.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the father of the applicant is a working as a constable in C.R.P.F. whereas the applicant is working in U.P. Police. Inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph 12 of the affidavit it is submitted that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- had been taken by the husband of the victim from the father of the applicant and when the aforesaid amount has been demanded the applicant has been falsely implicated in the above mentioned case crime number. It is submitted that through criminality is alleged to have been committed upon the victim forcibly, there are no injuries on the body of the victim.
As such, it is urged that except the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. Apart from the above, it is also urged that the prosecution story is highly improbable as criminality alleged is impossible to be committed at the mids of the day which 12 p.m.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vineet Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2017 (13) SCC 369, in support of his submission that except for the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is no other evidence against the applicant, as such, the applicant cannot be held to be guilty on that evidence alone.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the factual and legal submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Pradeep be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Manish Tripathi