Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38134 of 2019 Applicant :- Suneeta Devi And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Sagar Dwivedi,Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, over this Anticipatory Bail Application, moved by the applicants, Suneeta Devi, Sani @ Subham Raj, Manu and Tanu @ Tanishka, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, in Case Crime No. 629 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 427 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, as well as learned A.G.A., appearing for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the prosecutorix is major. Her age has been determined to be 18-19 years in medical age determination test, which has been filed on record. She had moved application, supported with affidavit, before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah, with contention that, under her own volition, she had gone with Luky and got married with him and since then is residing with Luky. This was a false accusation. Luky has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39097 of 2019, hence a prayer anticipatry bail, for the present applicants, has been made.
Learned private counsel for informant as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed Anticipatory Bail Application with this contention that the prosecutorix was minor. As per her High School Certificate, her date of birth is 23.3.2002, as was written in the first information report, and occurrence was of 19.3.2019, i.e., on that day, she was two or three days less than 17 years. This fact could not be brought before the court, while order, granting anticipatory bail to Luky, was passed. Prosecutorix has yet not been recovered by the informant. Offence is very heinous, Hence Application for Anticipatory Bail be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through rival submissions, it is apparent that as per the first information report, on the date of occurrence prosecutorix was of about 17 years of age and she, under planning, by taking with her cash and gold ornaments, went with Luky, when informant and his other family members were not present at her home. Meaning thereby, it was not due to enticing or kidnapping because the prosecutorix went with Luky, after full preparation, having cash and gold ornaments with her. She has been held to be of 18-19 years of age, in the medical age determination test. Hence, a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed.
The applicants, Suneeta Devi, Sani @ Subham Raj, Manu and Tanu @ Tanishka, involved in above mentioned Case Crime number, is granted anticipatory bail and is directed to furnish a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, till submission of report by the Police, under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;
(ii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
He is further directed to furnish an undertaking that he will not interfere with investigation and will not influence any one of the witnesses. He will not tamper with evidence and will not indulge himself in any criminal activity.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 bgs/