Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28864 of 2020 Applicant :- Prayansu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devi Prasad Tripathi,Manish Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
By means of this application the applicant, Prayansu, has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 844 of 2020, under Sections-363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4, 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Police Station-Civil Line, District-Moradabad.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA representing the State. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 25.07.2020. He is of no criminal antecedent. Prosecutrix is major. She herself has said her age to be of 17 years and six months on the date of occurrence. She went with the applicant under her own volition and lived with him with physical relation, as stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, she developed another version under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that marriage was refused by the applicant. Whereas, it was a consensual living. There is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence, in case he is released on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA has vehemently opposed bail with the contention that prosecutrix is minor as per medical age determination wherein she has been held to be of 16 years but, could not oppose this fact that applicant is of no criminal antecedent.
Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, gone through the material placed on record it is apparent that prosecutrix in her statement itself has said to be above 17 years of age and under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is nothing incriminating against the applicant. Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the statement is of that fact that there was a consensual living. Subsequently, marriage was refused. Medical age determination is of 16 years which may be with variation of two years either way. Whereas, in the matriculation record she is age about 17 years. Considering the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail with certain conditions.
Let the applicant, Prayansu, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Deepak/