Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24331 of 2021 Applicant :- Shailendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Archana Srivastava,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of first informant despite service of notice.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have not committed any offence. In her statement recorded, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., victim girl has stated that she was having a love affair with applicant no.1 and that she has not made any allegation of kidnapping or of rape against applicants. Learned counsel has submitted that for the first time in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was recorded after 15 days of incident, victim girl has made allegation of rape against applicants. Learned counsel has referred the statements of several persons, examined during investigation and submitted that version of victim was found false and that after thorough investigation, the prosecution version was found false and police have submitted final report. It has been submitted that against that final report, the first informant has filed a protest petition, which was registered as a complaint case and thereafter, applicants have been summoned vide order dated 10.01.2018. It has been submitted that as per ossification test, age of victim girl is 17 years and that the court below has passed the summoning order merely on the basis of statement of victim girl, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in a mechanical manner and ignoring other relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted that the incident pertains to the year 2015. It has been submitted that the applicants are languishing in jail since 19.03.2021 having no criminal history and that in case the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that victim is a minor girl.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicants Shailendra and Shatrughan alias Keshav Singh involved in Case Crime No.30 of 2015, under Sections 354, 364, 376-D, 506 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.Bithauli, District Etawah, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicants in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 6.10.2021 Neeraj