Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32752 of 2018 Applicant :- Randhir Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh,Zia Naz Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a Second Bail Application on behalf of Randhir Kumar Singh, in Case Crime No.3379 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376, IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.
Heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. In order to support the present second application for bail, learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded in the ongoing trial in Case No.47 of 2018 State Vs. Randhir alias Kaaku where on 11.7.2018, the prosecutrix has not at all supported the prosecution case. She has said that on the date of occurrence in the evening hours, she left home for her tuition. She was annoyed over scolding that she had received the previous evening. It is said that annoyed over the said issue, she went to the place of her Aunt (Bua), at Surajmal Vihar where she stayed for two days. Upon her returning, she said that she was called by the police as in the meanwhile, her father had got a case registered against the applicant, Randhir Kumar Singh, who was her senior in the school. It is said in the examination-in-chief that the applicant had not taken her away by blandishment or otherwise, and, he was not at all at fault. Allegations regarding her mail account being hacked or her photos being shot were also denied. It was also denied that the prosecutrix ever accompanied the applicant to Masoori or Haridwar. About her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix said that the said statement she had made on the persuasion of her father, and, at the dictation of the police. She was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution but to no consequence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking to the aforesaid stand of the prosecutrix in the ongoing trial, even if the assessment of evidence on an overall basis may lie in the province of the Trial Court, there is no justification to keep the applicant in jail. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 10.12.2017.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the statement of the prosecutrix before the police and the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has been consistent. It is submitted that evidence recorded at the trial is for the assessment of the Trial Court, and, not of any relevance to the present bail application.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the evidence appearing in the case, the severity of punishment, the allegations against the applicant, in particular, the fact that in the ongoing trial the prosecutrix has taken an exculpatory stand that shows the applicant not to be involved at all prima facie, 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 Randhir Kumar Singh, in Case Crime No.3379 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376, IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad 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.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 NSC