Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40827 of 2018 Applicant :- Sonu Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Babu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Sonu Pandey in connection with Case Crime No.337 of 2018, under Sections 376D, 506 IPC, PS Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya.
Heard Sri Anil Babu, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned AGA appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the statement of the prosecutrix is constantly vacillating. In the FIR she has said that on the day of occurrence she had alighted from a roadways bus and was going back home on foot and while on way near the Jalaun crossing she received a phone call from the applicant Sonu Pandey, asking her whereabouts and that if she wanted to accompany him to Kanpur to which she answered in the affirmative. The applicant Sonu Pandey arrived in a car alongwith another Monu Bajpayee, still another Rahul Tiwari and Chetan Yadav. As she was driven in the car all the four outraged her modesty and from Kanpur to Auraiya she was taken to the office of the applicant, where each of the four by turns, ravished her. Thereafter threatening her into silence upon pain of death they left her in front of the Auraiya Mandi wherefrom she proceeded to the police station and lodged a report.
Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that by contrast in her statement under Section 164 CrPC dated 15.03.2018, though she has stood by the story of rape, but has materially altered the statement regarding the occurrence to say that at about seven in the evening, when she alighted from the bus, the applicant Sonu Pandey slapped her and forced her to sit in the car. Rest of the allegations in the FIR are not at variance with the said statement. However, lateron a further statement under Section 164 CrPC dated 05.06.2018 was recorded wherein the prosecutrix has said that her age is 19 years and she has passed her class V. She is a Muslim who has married a Hindu boy. Four months after marriage, her husband and father- in-law threw her out of her matrimonial home telling her that she should implicate Sonu, Rahul, Chetan and Monu in a false case, as a condition precedent to taking her back. Accordingly, she lodged the FIR and got her statement under Section 164 CrPC, earlier recorded on 15.03.2018 inculpating the applicant, and, the other co-accused. Lateron, it is said in the statement dated 05.06.2018 that her in-laws did not take her back. She has stated that Sonu, Rahul, Chetan and Monu have not ravished her; she does not even know any of them and that she has lodged a false First Information Report under the circumstances last mentioned. It is further argued that under identical circumstances, co-accused Rahul Tiwari has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 03.10.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37930 of 2018 on the foot of which the applicant claims parity.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail plea but does not dispute the fact that the prosecutrix has given two contradictory statements under Section 164 CrPC one on 15.03.2018, and, the other on 05.06.2018, where the former is inculpatory but the latter is absolutely exculpatory.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence and above all the contradictory statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC, one inculpatory and the other exculpatory, the second showing the accusation to be the absolutely false and also giving out the reason for the false accusation as also the plea of parity 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, Sonu Pandey involved in Case Crime No.337 of 2018, under Sections 376D, 506 IPC, PS Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya 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 :- 26.10.2018 Deepak