As per office report dated 18.12.2019 notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served but no has put in appearance.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Submission is that the age of the victim as per medical report is 17 years. Given margin of two years on higher side, she can be considered to be major. In the first information report there is allegation that the victim absconded from the house on the pretext of going to serve meal to her parents. The first information report was promptly lodged and the victim was recovered. However, after the victim was recovered after five months, she has stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C that she went from Mahoba to Delhi and Delhi to Noida, where his brother and sister-in-law were resided and after taking a room they were entered into marriage and living as husband and wife. Under Section 164 Cr.P.C she has alleged forcible abduction and rape by the applicant. It has been submitted that it is a case of falsely implication. The victim while residing with the applicant for five months, she did not raised an alarm or cried for help. The Apex Court in the case of Rajak Mohd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1395 of 2015 vide order dated 23.08.2018 has held that where the prosecutrix lived with the accused and freely moved around with the accused where she came across many people at different points of time but never complained of any criminal act, the conviction of the accused under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C was held to be unwarranted in law. The applicant is in jail since 14.09.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted herein above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Rajkumar @! Yuvraj Shrivas involved in Case Crime No.200 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District- Mahoba 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 SS