Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45623 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajeev Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Rajeev in connection with Case Crime No. 0227 of 2018 under Section 376D, 325, 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Line, District Moradabad.
Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Saurabh Trivedi, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix inasmuch as on 06.03.2018 at 07:29 hours in the morning, a FIR was registered by brother of the co-accused, Rohtash, that is to say, Rahul Kumar Raghav against the prosecutrix along with her father and husband with an allegation of abduction committed on 05.03.2018 at 10:00 in the night hours. It is submitted that in connection with said FIR except for Sapna and Aakash, all other accused are in jail. The aforesaid fact is stated by Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant at the Bar. It is submitted that in a prompt reaction to the aforesaid FIR lodged by brother of Rohtash, co-accused, the FIR giving rise to the present crime was lodged by the prosecutrix on 21.03.2018 through an application dated 08.03.2018 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that was preceded by an information to the SSP, Moradabad dated 07.03.2018. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant who is a friend of co-accused Rohtash, has been roped in in the present crime by the prosecutrix in order to bargain her freedom in relation to the case crime where she is an accused herself, along with all her family. It is submitted that the account of rape consistently carried in the FIR, and, in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is not at all borne out by the medico legal evidence on record inasmuch as the prosecutrix's account in the FIR shows that she was assaulted by co-accused Rohtash with a stick, along with others, causing fracture to her left arm, and, thereafter all the three accused (including the applicant) gang raped her in a hotel over a number of days till she could escape on 05.03.2018. It is pointed out that in the medico legal report, the injury does not at all corroborate the prosecution case inasmuch as the general examination report shows two bluish contusions, one of which is to the left arm, and, X-ray has been advised, but in the supplementary examination report, no bony injury is seen.
It is further pointed out that there is no evidence from the reports produced before the Court by the learned AGA, along with the case diary, which may show any internal injury sustained by the prosecutrix, particularly, to her private parts. The only opinion expressed by the doctor that has been brought to the notice of this Court is that sexual assault cannot be ruled out. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, based on the said report, that the injury report is not at all compatible with a case of violent assault alleged in the FIR, and, gang rape by three men over a number of days. To the contrary, it is emphasized that the present FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law by the prosecutrix to bargain exculpation for herself and her family in the abduction case of a brother of co-accused Rohtash, who is the applicant's friend.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and the learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the allegations brought by the prosecutrix are consistent in the FIR, and, in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but does not dispute that the prosecutrix is an accused in the FIR relating to abduction of brother of co-accused Rohtash where she has been chargesheeted.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the fact that the present FIR has been lodged a short while after the prosecutrix herself has been nominated in a case of abduction of a brother of co- accused Rohtash who is the applicant's friend, and, the medico legal report which, prima facie, does not support a case of gang rape as alleged, 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 Rajeev involved in Case Crime No. 0227 of 2018 under Section 376D, 325, 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Line, District Moradabad 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 :- 29.11.2018 Deepak