Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25666 of 2016 Applicant :- Suresh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by accused-applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376(d) IPC and 3/4 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Khandaulee, District Agra.
3. It is contended that applicant has been falsely implicated inasmuch as the girl was being misbehaved by her father himself and applicant was a tenant in house of Informant and used to provide safety to girl. Subsequently he has left house to another place and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also drew my attention to Supurdaginama stating that parents of girl give an undertaking that they will keep girl safely and will not cause any torture to her.
4. However, from record I find that girl made statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. supporting FIR version. It is on record as Annexure- 5 to affidavit, page 29 of paper book. Alleged Supurdaginama shows that it was submitted for taking custody and it was clearly mentioned that girl was kidnapped by accused. After medical examination and recording of statement of girl now custody of girl was taken. It would be useful to reproduce the alleged affidavit on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for appellant, which shows that affidavit was given for some other purpose:
^^1- ;g fd 'kiFkdrkZ mijksDr eqdneas eas vig`r ukckfyx dq0 y{eh dk firk gS bl dkj.k eqdnek gkykr ls iw.kZr% tkudkj gSA
2- ;g fd 'kiFkdrkZ dh iq=h dks mijksDr eqdnesa ds vfHk;qDrx.kkas }kjk vigj.k dj ys x;s Fks 'kiFkdrkZ dh iq=h foospuk mijkar fey x;h gSA rFkk dq0 y{eh dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k gks pqdk gSA rFkk v0 /kkjk 164 lh0vkj0ih0lh0 ds c;ku U;k;ky; eas gks pqds gSaA
3- ;g fd 'kiFkdrkZ viuh iq=h dq0 y{eh dh ns[kjs[k djsxk mldk ekufld o 'kkjhfjd fodkl [;ky j[ksxk rFkk mldks f'k{kk fnyk;sxkA
4- ;g fd 'kiFkdrkZ viuh vig`rk iq=h dq0 y{eh dks 'kkjhfjd ekufld ;kruk ugha nsxk vkSj mldh lEiw.kZ ns[kjs[k djsxk rFkk tc Hkh foospukf/kdkjh egksn; dq0 y{eh dks C;ku vFkok vU; dkuwuh dk;Zokgh gsrq cqyk;sxk rks vius gtsZ [kpsZ ij yk;sxkA
5- ;g fd 'kiFkdrkZ vig`rk ukckfyx dq0 y{eh dks viuh lqiqnZxh eas pkgrk gSA** ysuk “1. That the deponent in the aforesaid case is the father of the kidnapped minor Km. Lakshmi; hence, he is completely acquainted with the circumstances of the case.
2. That the daughter of the deponent was kidnapped by the accused persons of the aforesaid case and has been recovered after investigation. Km. Lakshmi has undergone medical examination and given her statement u/s 164 CrPC in the Court.
3. That the deponent shall look after his daughter Km. Lakshmi and take care of her mental and physical growth. He shall also make arrangements for her education.
4. That the deponent shall not subject his kidnapped daughter Km. Lakshmi to physical or mental torture, and shall take full care of her and bring her along on his personal expenses as and when she is called by the investigating officer for statement or any other legal proceeding.
5. That the deponent is willing to take custody of kidnapped minor Km. Lakshmi.” (English Translation by Court)
5. Looking to entire facts and circumstances, ex facie it cannot be said that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail.
6. Application is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 AK