Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34874 of 2018 Applicant :- Sunny Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Nath Singh,Ajay Kumar Kushwaha,Akhilesh Kumar,Neeraj Kumar Pandey,Sushil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Singh Yadav,Anand Swroop
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 556 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Jhunsi, district-Allahabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
The first information report was lodged by the informant against three persons including applicant, alleging therein that on 20.10.2017 at about 12:00 p.m. when the daughter of the informant, Neelam aged about fourteen years had gone to the field to attend the natural call, where the native of the same village namely, Shunny, Nanhoo and Dinesh who were in drunken condition had forcible taken away her.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 20.10.2017 and the report of the incident was lodged against three persons including applicant after an inordinate and unexplained delay of five days on 25.10.2017. He next submitted that after completion of investigation, the applicant was chargesheeted, while other co-ccused were exonerated by the by the police. He further submitted that as per medical opinion the victim is aged about above 16 years and below 18 years. She in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. (annexure-3) has supported the prosecution case but the same cannot be accepted on its face value, especially in the absence of any corroboration by medical evidence.
From the perusal of the facts stated by her in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, it appears that she was a consenting party, who eloped with the applicant and had gone to Ghoorpur and lived with him for three days in his relatives home. The victim was having ample opportunities to escape from the clutches of the applicant or raising cries for help but she did do anything. Her medical report does not indicate any marks of violence, injury or sexual assault. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 20.11.2017 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicant, Sunny be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
1. The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Faridul