Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34482 of 2018 Applicant :- Tausheef Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Irfan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Tausheef, who is in jail since 06.06.2018 in connection with Case Crime No. 168 of 2018, under Sections 452,376,506 IPC, P.S. Kemri, District Rampur.
Heard Mohd. Irfan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA alongwith Sri Avaneesh Shukla appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated. It is urged that in fact the prosecutrix and the applicant are into a relationship, and, they were seen talking to each other by the mother of the prosecutrix, as asserted in paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of the bail application, on account of which the first information was lodged against the applicant falsely, accusing him of rape. The FIR was lodged by the uncle of the prosecutrix. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix is shown to have supported the FIR allegation. The learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the allegations made out are a case of outraging the modesty but there is no allegation of rape. It is submitted that even then allegations regarding outraging of her modesty by applicant have come from the prosecutrix under the pressure of her family. So far as the truth of the matter is concerned, there is a relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix that is not acceptable to her family. It is further urged that the prosecutrix, going by her medical estimation of her age, is aged about 19 years, and, is a major.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the version in the FIR and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the prosecutrix are consistent. It is however, not denied that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. while there are allegations of outraging the prosecutrix's modesty, there is no allegation of rape.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the background of the parties, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, rather the wavering stand of the prosecution changing from rape to outraging modesty 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 Tausheef involved in Case Crime No. 168 of 2018, under Sections 452,376,506 IPC, P.S. Kemri, District Rampur 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 BKM/-