Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8058 of 2019 Applicant :- Santosh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Shri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, Santosh with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 166 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 506 and 376D IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Amariya, district Pillibhit.
The present FIR has been lodged by Manager, S.P. Farm House against the applicant and four others due to business rivalry between the owners of S.P. Farm House and Farm House of Balvinder Singh. The FIR has been lodged on 20th July, 2018 at 20.50 hours for an incident dated 15.7.2018 at 7.00 a.m.
It has been alleged that the Manager of S.P. Farm House resides along with his family in the campus of the farm and on 15.7.2018 at 7.00 a.m. Santosh (applicant) along with Rahul and Sanjeev abducted the victim in front of her mother, who informed about the incident to the informant. The informant searched for his daughter, Priyanka, the victim and as per version of his relatives it has been averred in the FIR that his daughter was supposed to be confined at the residence of Brijmohan, the co-accused. When the informant reached at the residence of Brijmohan, he found Rahul's (co-accused) motorcycle at Bareilly and the co-accused Brijmohan told that Rahul and the victim had stayed there for 4-5 days, and have proceeded to Amritsar by train. On having the conversation with the co-accused, he was asked to take away his daughter from Amritsar. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had met with Rahul at her uncle's place at Pachpeda. She has further stated that once when she was at her aunt's place in Rudrapur, Rahul came to meet her and clicked her photographs. She has also stated that Balvindar and Sanju were already present there. She has alleged commission of offence of rape against all the three accused i.e. Rahul, Balvindar and Sanju. She has further stated that Balvindar gave money to Rahul asking him to take her at a distant place and marry her. Rahul and the applicant dropped her at their aunt's place. After which, the applicant came back, but Rahul took her to the residence of sister of Santosh, where he committed rape upon her. She was brought back when the family members of Rahul informed him that in case, the victim does not return, they will be sent to jail. She has also stated that the applicant was not present at the Bareilly junction, where she was dropped by Rahul. In the Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she was friendly with Rahul. An FIR was lodged by Genda Lal, father of co-accused Sanjeev @ Sanju alleging that owner of S.P. Farm House, Vinod Kumar along with Ramesh Sharma (informant of the FIR against Krishna Pal and Pal Singh) had kidnapped Sanjay Paswan, Santosh Kumar (applicant) and Brijmohan on 19.7.2018 at 10.00 a.m. and had wrongfully confined them in S.P. Farm House. On information by Genda Lal, father of one of the co-accused, the police recovered Sanjay Santosh and Brijmohan on 20.7.2018 from S.P. Farm House. Later on, on 24.7.2018 regarding kidnapping of Priyanka Sharma, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant and four others. On the information received by the police, Priyanka Sharma was recovered, the victim along with Rahul and Santosh. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier recovery dated 20.7.2018 goes to show that the victim was not with the applicant, who was kidnapped on 19.7.2018, whereas the victim is alleged to be abducted on 15.7.2018. The story regarding kidnapping of victim appears to be highly improbable and due to business rivalry amongst the owners of the farm house, where in one of the farm houses, the applicant and his brother was working, the present FIR has been lodged. The victim appears to be major as per medical report. The allegation of rape is not corroborated by the medical of the victim. There are variations in the statement given before the Doctor, statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 24.7.2018.
It is further contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically be cancelled.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Sumaira