Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26205 of 2021 Applicant :- Tinku Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U. P. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Kuamr Tripathi
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed present offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Incident is said to have taken place on 8.3.2021 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 9.3.2021. Victim is major. Referring to the contents of the F.I.R., it is further argued that the F.I.R. was lodged by the victim herself. Had the applicant been involved in committing the present offence, this fact would have mentioned in the F.I.R. itself. Referring to the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., it is further argued that nothing has been stated by the victim in it to attract the offence under section 376 IPC. Thus, referring to the entire facts and evidence of the case, it is further argued that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Victim has changed her version from stage to stage. It is further argued applicant is languishing in jail since 10.3.2021. In the criminal case shown as criminal history, a final report has been submitted. It is lastly submitted that in case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that victim herself has lodged the F.I.R. She has levelled the commission of offence of gang rape upon her. Name of the applicant was made clear by the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., thus argued that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, complicity of accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the medical evidence, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Tinku Yadav involved in Case Crime No.129 of 2021 under Section 376-D IPC, Police Station Pooranpur, District - Pilibhit be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
4. 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
The party shall file self-attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned Court / Authority / Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 ss Digitally signed by OM PRAKASH Date: 2021.10.01 12:41:45 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad