Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41992 of 2018 Applicant :- Satyaveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Satyaveer in connection with Case Crime No. 372 of 2018 under Section 366, 376 IPC, P.S. Behjoi, District Sambhal.
Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, there is an allegation against the applicant along with his father Saudan and brother Raj Kumar, taking away his daughter by blandishment. She has been acknowledged to be 18 years of age. The prosecutrix was recovered on 27.06.2018 by the police while investigating Case Crime No. 372 of 2018 under Section 366, 376 IPC arising out of an FIR that is registered by her father, last mentioned. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a copy of which is annexed as annexure no. 4 to the affidavit in support of the application. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the statement and the statement recorded at the time of her recovery, she has categorically asserted that she is 18 years of age, educated and a young woman, and, on 24.06.2018 at 05:00 p.m., she left home after a quarrel with her family members. It is also said that she left home of her free will, and that, she went alone. It is also said that the case registered at the instance of her father is based on false allegations. It is further pointed out that in her statement to the doctor, at the time of her medico legal examination, she has said that she was taken away by Satyaveer on 24.06.2018, and, came back on 27.06.2018. There is not a hint or mention of rape, in the statement made to the doctor. It is further pointed out that in the medico legal report, there are no injuries seen either on the body or to her private parts, which, learned counsel for the applicant submits would be of particular relevance, looking to the allegation of gang rape. However, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has alleged a categorical case of being taken away by Satyaveer, his brother and another Raj Kumar by force confined to a room and ravished by all of them. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the stand of the prosecutrix at the time of recovery and what she said before the doctor on one hand, and, that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. disclose a shifting and changing version. It appears that the prosecutrix has come up with a case in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under pressure of her family members, in order to support the FIR lodged by her father, which she spontaneously denied at the time of her recovery by the police.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation against the applicant in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is categorical and one of gang rape. It finds support in the FIR lodged by the father of the prosecutrix. However, the fact that the prosecutrix disowned the prosecution case altogether, at the time of her recovery by the police, is not disputed by the learned AGA.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the changing stand of the prosecutrix in her statement to the police at the time of recovery, her statement to the doctor at the time of medical examination and then her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., besides the fact that the medico legal report also does not disclose any kind of injury, 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 Satyaveer involved in Case Crime No. 372 of 2018 under Section 366, 376 IPC, P.S. Behjoi, District Sambhal 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 Deepak