Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33258 of 2020 Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Solanki,Varsha Soni Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jeetendra Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajay Saundilya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the first informant.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence. The alleged incident has been shown of 10.07.2020 but F.I.R. has been lodged on 12.07.2020. It has been pointed out that in her statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim girl has clearly stated that she was having love affair with applicant since last two years and on 10.07.2020, both of them have gone to Mainpuri to solemnize marriage with each other, but due to lockdown, they were apprehended. She has stated her age as 18 years and also stated that no bad act has been done with her. Learned counsel has submitted that for the first time, the allegation of physical relationship has been made against the applicant in the statement of victim, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has merely stated that applicant has established relations with her. It has been submitted that though, as per High School Certificate, age of victim has been shown about 15 years, but in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated her age as 18 years and she stated her date of birth as 16.12.2002. Learned counsel has submitted that victim has returned back on the same day and she was a consenting party and that she is a major girl. There are no clear allegations of rape and she has merely stated that relations were established, whereas in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that no physical relations were established.
It has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2020 having no criminal history and that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that victim is minor girl, aged about 15 years and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that the applicant has established relations with her.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant-Sharad Kumar involved in Case Crime No.231 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Dibiyapur, District- Auraiya 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 applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. 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 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 applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 SK Goswami