Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41902 of 2018 Applicant :- Roshan Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Mishra Gana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of Roshan Lal in connection with Case Crime No.326 of 2018 under Sections 376, 120-B, 323 I.P.C. and 17 POCSO Act, P.S. Baheri, District Bareilly.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned AGA along with Sri Avanish Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the first information report was lodged by the prosecutrix herself with a categorical case of outraging her modesty and not an allegation of rape. Lateron in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the same stand has been maintained by the prosecutrix but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has alleged rape. The applicant is the father of co- accused Kamal, who is shown to have committed the offence together, in variation of the first information report version. Learned counsel submits that the prosecutrix has changed the prosecution case of outraging her modesty to a case of rape, which makes the prosecution doubtful. It is further contended that the applicant going by her medico legal examination report dated 02.05.2018 from the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly appears to be 19 years of age. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the provisions of POCSO Act would not be attracted prima facie.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that going by the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., a case against the applicant is clearly disclosed. However, he does not dispute the fact that there was no case of rape in the first information report lodged by the prosecutrix herself that has been brought in lateron through the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the improvement in the prosecution case leading to alteration, 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 Roshan Lal in connection with Case Crime No.326 of 2018 under Sections 376, 120-B, 323 I.P.C. and 17 POCSO Act, P.S. Baheri, District Bareilly 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 :- 31.10.2018 R./