Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31250 of 2018 Applicant :- Sayeb Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ali Hasan,Manish Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri R.C. Yadav along with Sri Rakesh Singh, for the applicant, Sri Ishtiyaq holding brief of Sri Ali Hasan, for the informant and Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
Sayeb (applicant) is in jail since 01.02.2018 in connection with Case Crime No.55/2018, under Sections 376 D, 452, 354, 506, IPC, P.S. Doghat, district Baghpat.
The F.I.R. was lodged by Jameer Ahmad, husband of the victim. In the F.I.R., it has been stated that on 18.01.2018 the informant had gone at the house of his relation stayed there at night then in the night about 10-00 P.M. the accused knocked the door of the informant and told his wife that he had met with an accident upon which Smt. Raziya, wife of the informant opened the door on which the accused Sayeb, Naseem and Jameel forcibly entered the house of the informant and gagging the mouth of his wife committed rape upon her. They also threatened her that if she had disclosed about the incident to anyone then the videograph made of the incident would be made public. In this case in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim had supported the prosecution case. When the statement of victim was recorded in Court on 13.5.2019 she did not support the prosecution story rather she had clearly stated that on the time of incident dated 18.01.2018 Sayeb, Jameer and Naseem had neither entered in her house nor committed rape upon her.
The counsel for the applicant submits that according to the F.I.R. itself the incident had taken place on 18.01.2018 while the F.I.R. was lodged on 27.01.2018 and there is no explanation of inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. In the statement in the court the victim had disowned the prosecution story and was declared hostile. So far as the informant is concerned, he was not present on the spot. No other witness has been mentioned in the F.I.R. as being present on the spot.
The counsel for the informant, however, opposed the bail application on the ground that by order dated 27.4.2018 the bail application of the coaccused Jameel has been rejected by this Court, who had been assigned the role of catching hold only.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties.
At the time of passing of the order dated 27.04.2018 the statement of victim recorded in the court was not available as such under new circumstances the order dated 27.4.2018 is not relevant. At present the evidence of the victim has been recorded in the court and she did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. So far as the informant is concerned, he was not present on the spot. In such circumstances the applicant is entitled for bail.
The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Sayeb accused in Case Crime No.55/2018, under Sections 376 D, 452, 354, 506, IPC, P.S. Doghat, district Baghpat be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 mt