Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2632 of 2019 Applicant :- Qamar Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Mullick Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Qamar Ahmad, in Case Crime no.536 of 2018, under Sections 147, 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut.
Heard Sri Anil Mullick, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Daya Ram Yadav, learned Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record, and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the report of the Chief Medial Officer, Meerut along with his Board of Doctors dated 30.11.2018, the prosecutrix is aged about 20 years. The said report is based on an ossification test. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is clearly a major and of the competent age to marry a man of her choice or stay with a man to she wants. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she has said that the applicant and the prosecutrix have been friends for three years; that the applicant says that he would marry her; that ever since the two have become friends, there had carnal relations, like man and wife on a promise by him to marry; that these relations have extended over a period of three years; that each time he had sex with the prosecutrix, he promised to marry her and the prosecutrix fell for his promise every time; that on 22.11.2018, the prosecutrix asked the applicant to marry him, in response to which he said that he would come over and fetch her on the following day; that on 23.11.2018, he came over to her place at 4'o clock in the evening, and again had carnal relations extending the deception of marriage; that he would say that he considers the prosecutrix to be his wife; that on 23.11.2018, there was nobody at the prosecutrix's home, and the applicant took her along to his place; that there his father, mother, sister and brothers were all present; that all of them beat up the prosecutrix, and asked her to get out; that they threatened to do her to death and told the prosecutrix they would marry the applicant elsewhere; that the two families were frequent visitors to each other; that after she turned out, the prosecutrix came home; that the applicant's family went about saying that they would marry the applicant and the prosecutrix, and said so before the Panchayat too; that it is said that the applicant's family are looking for a suitable match for him elsewhere; and, that on 28.11.2018, the proseutrix had lodged the FIR in question accompanying her uncle Mahare Alam to the Police Station.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that a perusal of the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly shows that the parties have been into a relationship spreading across a period of three years, which has been physically intimate by consent, and one in contemplation of marriage. It is submitted that the relationship has not worked out, but there was no intention to cheat at the inception. It is urged that looking to the said facts, for the worst, it may be a case of breach of promise to marry, but no offence of rape or any other offence is made out against the applicant.
Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is admittedly a major, the fact that the parties have been into a relationship, that includes carnal relations over a period of three years, in contemplation of marriage, the fact that the relationship has not worked out between parties, the fact that there was no intention prima facie to cheat at the inception of the relationship, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant, Qamar Ahmad, in Case Crime no.536 of 2018, under Sections 147, 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut, be released on bail on executing his 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.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 Anoop