Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2648 of 2018 Appellant :- Ravindra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Sagar Singh,Heramb Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
In compliance of order dated 23.7.2018, a counter affidavit has been filed by learned AGA, which is taken on record.
As per office report dated 30.7.2018, notice issued to opposite party No. 2 has been served, but none has appeared on behalf of the complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 1.5.2018 passed by Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur in Bail Application No.1642 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.49 of 2018 under Section 366, 506 IPC and 3(1)(Da)(Dha) 5-A SC/ST Act 1989 (Amended Act 2015), Police Station Jhanghar, District Gorakhpur, whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
As per the prosecution version, the first information report was lodged against this accused, Ravindra alleging that on 21.2.2018, he kidnapped the daughter of complainant and compelled her for marriage.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a student of B.A. (Part-III) and resides in the same village of complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. According to the medical examination report, which is annexed at Page No. 52 of the affidavit, the prosecutrix is major aged about 19 years. According to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that there is love affair between the appellant and prosecutrix. She went with the appellant, but subsequently, he refused to marry with her and after four days of incident on the pretext of going to Temple, he left her at the house of Pradhan. She further stated that nothing wrong has been done with her. She refused for her internal medical examination. She is major and consenting party. There is no independent witness. The appellant is languishing in jail since 26.4.2018 (more than three months) having no criminal history and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not abscond or tamper with the evidence.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.
For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 1.5.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Ravindra involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The appellant 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 him 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 court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Sumaira