Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 67/2021, under Sections 376, 506, 120-B IPC, police station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that prosecutrix is a mature and married lady aged about 42 years and that her allegations regarding rape against applicant are thoroughly false and baseless. It was further submitted that alleged last incident of rape has been shown of 29.11.2020, whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 31.01.2021 and no date and time of earlier incidents of rape have been mentioned. It was also submitted that prosecutrix has made contradictory statement. Learned counsel has submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has stated that the sister-in-law of applicant namely, Neetu has taken her to the alleged house, where applicant was present and after that said Neetu has gone away from there, whereas in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has alleged that said Neetu remained present at the time of incident outside the gate. Learned counsel has submitted that no such evidence has been collected during investigation that any video of prosecutrix was prepared or any video was made viral. It has been submitted that in fact the husband of prosecutrix has taken Rs. 3,50,000/- from applicant in the year 2019 for expansion of his grocery shop but he did not return the said amount and when applicant has demanded the same, F.I.R. of this case was lodged making false and baseless allegations of rape. Learned counsel has referred statements of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and submitted that the allegations of rape made against the applicant are not reliable. It has further been argued that the applicant is in judicial custody since 01.02.2021, having no criminal history and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that prosecutrix has made consistent allegations that applicant has committed rape upon her for 3-4 times and that by exploiting her physically he has also taken Rs. 2,50,000/- from her by threatening that otherwise he would make the video of prosecutrix viral. It was further submitted that there is reliable evidence against the applicant that he has committed rape upon the prosecutrix Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Sachin Sharma @ Charanjeet Sharma involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant will not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant or any of the witness of the case.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Anand