Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33811 of 2015 Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- S. S. Shah,Gaurav Kakkar,Onkar Singh,Rahul Misra,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that the incident is said to have occurred on 31.5.2015 but the FIR was lodged after four days i.e. 4.6.2015 but no plausible explanation has been given with regard to delay. He further submitted that the applicant was named in the FIR but the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC has not taken his name. He further submitted that even in the FIR, the prosecutrix has stated that she came to know about the name of the accused persons later on. He further referred to the statement of the Doctor (PW 1), Jyoti, who had medically examined the victim, wherein she has stated she could not find any injury either on private part or the person of the prosecutrix. In her cross-examination, the doctor has stated that she could not infer that any rape was committed. He further submitted that the prosectutrix and her husband are not cooperating with the trial and they are not appearing before the trial court to adduce their evidence. In support thereof, he referred to the order sheet of the court below and stated that on 16.5.2017, the trial court has issued bailable warrant against the prosecutrix as well as her husband for appearing before the court below for adducing their evidence. He further submitted that prior to issuance of bailable warrant, several opportunities were given for appearing before the court below. He further submits that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant connecting him with the alleged offence. He further submits that the applicant has not committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution and the present prosecution has been launched maliciously just to harass, victimise and exert undue pressure on him. He further submits that there is no chances of applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant does not have criminal history and is in jail since 12.6.2015.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Raju involved in Case Crime No. 346 of 2015, under Sections 323, 342, 376D & 392 I.P.C., Police Station Daurala/Daraula, District Meerut be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurise/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 vinay