Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38294 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramakant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, appearing on behalf of State.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Ramakant in connection with Case Crime No. 492 of 2017, under Sections 376D, 504, 452 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.
Pooranpur, District-Pilibhit.
On 05.10.2018 upon hearing counsel this Court passed the following orders:-
"Learned A.G.A. will seek instructions in the matter to indicate as to what evidence appears against the applicant, in particular, medico legal evidence. It will also be indicated as to how the contradiction in the statement of the victim/prosecutrix made to the doctor and that under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is there or is to be reconciled.
Lay as fresh again on 24th October, 2018."
Today, the learned AGA is not in a position to explain the differential stand of the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her statement made to the doctor during her medico legal examination at page 42 of the paper book that is thumb marked by her where she says "Maine Chhed Gaye Chillaye Karke Bhag Gaye Mama Log Aa Gaye Chillane Par". There is a wide contrast in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where there is a categorical allegation of rape after intruding into the house. It is submitted that there is no injury noticed in the medical report or evidence compatible with rape.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the two statements cannot be reconciled and it creates a serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. It is also urged that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is a tutored version given by the prosecutrix under family pressure and that of the police whereas what has been shared with the doctor is free from extraneous influence. The case before the Doctor is one of outraging modesty alone. It is, accordingly, submitted that the applicant is entitled to bail on the evidence as it stands.
Learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail but is not in a position to explain or reconcile the differential stand of the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that given in confidence to the doctor during her medical examination.
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 materially different case of the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that in her statement to the doctor, 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 Ramakant involved in Case Crime No.492 of 2017, under Sections 376D, 504, 452 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Pooranpur, District-Pilibhit 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 :- 30.10.2018 Neeraj