Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17410 of 2019 Applicant :- Rinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Babita Upadhyay,Sanjeev Kumar Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Raghvendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of informant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed the present offence. Initially FIR was lodged in this matter on 29.01.2019 regarding the offence said to have been committed on 26.01.2019 only for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC. Age of the victim is shown in the FIR as 19 years. Thus, referring to these facts, it is further submitted that offence under Section 363 IPC is not attracted in the present matter. It is next submitted that it appears improbable and unbelievable that victim was unconscious but she was taken by the applicant through train from Mathura to Bombay and she remain unconscious during whole journey. It is also submitted that statement of the victim on return has been recorded on 28.01.2019 itself. For the first time, she developed a different story and allegation of rape against the applicant was levelled. Referring to the medical evidence, it is further submitted that medical evidence is not in support of the oral version. In fact, there was some land dispute between the parties and due to that reason on the basis of false facts, present FIR was lodged. No such incident ever took place nor the applicant was involved in the present matter. Nothing is on record to attract the offence under Section 328 IPC. There is only oral submission. It is also submitted that when victim was returning from Bombay to Mathura, no complaint was made by her even on return from Bombay. Applicant and the victim both had gone together to the police station Raman Reti. Had the offence under Section 376 IPC been committed by the applicant, he would have not gone along with victim to the police station concerned. The applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 31.01.2019 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA argued that a prima facie case is made out. Although offence under Section 363 IPC is not attracted yet other offences levelled against the applicant are clearly attracted. At this juncture, learned counsel for the informant referred to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and argued that victim had gone to the police station concerned but no action was taken by the police.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Rinku involved in Case Crime No. 84 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 328, 376 IPC, P.S. Vrindavan, District - Mathura be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant 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 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 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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Sanjeet