Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45193 of 2019 Applicant :- Pravesh @ Rampravesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Priya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gopal Krishan Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Pravesh @ Rampravesh Chauhan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 389 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Muhammadabad, District- Mau, during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that age of the victim is allegedly 15 years. However, radiologist test of the victim has not been conducted and clear averments have been made in this regard in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit in support of the bail application. It has further been stated that only to prevent the determination of correct age of the victim, the medical examination has not been conducted. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., victim has not supported the allegations made in the FIR. She went with the applicant on her own. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 11.9.2019. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Learned AGA, on the basis of the instructions received, has stated that medical examination of the victim has not been conducted. Learned counsel for the informant has pointed out to the order of the trial court. It has been mentioned therein that the date of birth of the victim, as per Adhar Card, is 15.02.2002.
Even if the age of the victim mentioned in the Adhar Card is accepted to be correct, it is around 17 years. However, given margin of two years on higher side, she can be considered to be major.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
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 :- 26.11.2019 Ruchi Agrahari