Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28842 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt Rinki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State.
This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.334 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 328, 363, IPC, and Section 5/6, 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 03.07.2019.
The contention of the leaned counsel appearing for the applicant is that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the victim herself has been examined as P.W.-1. I have perused the said statement of the P.W.-1 the victim, copy of which has been annexed on page no.16 to the bail present second application, contents of which is self explicit. The applicant is a woman. The applicant is in jail since 05.10.2018 with no previous criminal history.
Learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Smt Rinki involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his 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, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such 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 learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. Causion It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 VKG