Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49111 of 2018 Applicant :- Shailendra Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- M.P. Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Kushwahah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Shailendra Singh Yadav, in Case Crime No.416 of 2018, under Sections 366, 376 IPC, Police Station, Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar.
Heard Sri M.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudheer Kumar Pathak, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though he has been nominated in the FIR lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix on an allegation of enticing away her daughter, and, also the fact that there is consistent allegation of ravishing the prosecutrix in her statement under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C., and that made to the doctor, a reading of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., shows that she was taken by the applicant on the pretext of securing for her a job to different cities including Bareilly, Dehradun, Chandigarh, and then back to Dehradun, and to Masoori, during which time she had ample opportunity to call rescue, in case it was a case where she was actually ravished, but she did not do so; more so, considering the fact that she had with her two mobile phones that were operational. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in between the interspersed allegation of rape, there is a categorical assertion that she had a love affair going on with the applicant over a period of one year, which is entirely incompatible with all the other allegations in the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and that made to the doctor; rather it is compatible with her conduct in going to different cities with the applicant, without calling rescue. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case where the prosecutrix eloped with the applicant of her free will and lateron, changed her mind under family pressure to come up with an allegation of rape against the applicant. It is pointed out that the prosecutrix was not at all recovered by the police, who made her way back home herself, which is also telltale of the fact that she left with the applicant of her free will and came back as per her wish, all of which is incompatible with a case of rape. It is further argued that a perusal of the medico legal report shows that there is no injury, internal or external, sustained by the prosecutrix that may corroborate a case of rape.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix moved through five different towns located far away and through public places where she did have mobile phone but did not call rescue, the fact that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., between inculpatory terms, she has acknowledged a love affair with the applicant over a period of one year, the fact that she came back home of her own without having to be recovered by the law enforcement agencies, the fact that there is no medico legal evidence compatible with a case of rape, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Shailendra Singh Yadav, in Case Crime No.416 of 2018, under Sections 366, 376 IPC, Police Station, Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on executing his 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 :- 20.12.2018 NSC