Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32095 of 2016 Applicant :- Satyendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Prasad Yadav,Ashok Kumar Maurya,Hare Ram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,K.M.Mohan
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Pursuant to earlier order of this Court dated 12.4.2018, learned counsel for the applicant has sent a written notice to Sri K.M. Mohan learned counsel for the informant about the said order passed by this Court but he has refused to accept the said notice, copy of which notice bearing the endorsement of refusal has been produced before this Court, which is being taken on record.
Case is listed peremptorily today.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that initially the first information report was lodged under Section 363, 366 IPC but subsequently, Section 376(i) IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act were added. Learned counsel for the applicant had drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., copy of which has been filed as annexure-5 and has argued that the victim was gifted mobile phone by the applicant and she used to frequently talk to him and that she had gone with the applicant out of her own free will without raising any alarm, therefore, it is argued that the victim was a consenting party. Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of this Court to the information sought by the applicant under Right to Information Act, copy of which has been filed as annexure-7 at page-59 of the paperbook and has argued that as per aforesaid information, recorded age of the victim in the Register of Prathmik Vidyalay Patkhauli Ballia, she was major and also as per her medical report, victim is aged more than 18 years and reference in this regard has been made to page 41 of the paperbook which is the medical report of the victim. It is next contended that there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further contended that the applicant has no criminal history and the applicant is in jail since 12.7.2016 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Satyendra Yadav, involved in case crime No.225 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376(i) IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Sukhpura, district Ballia be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:-
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.
4. The applicant shall appear on 15th of every month before the police station concerned to show his good conduct and behaviour.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 faraz