Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49099 of 2018 Applicant :- Umlesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Umlesh in connection with Case Crime No. 385 of 2015 under Section 363, 373, 504, 506, 376 IPC, P.S. Milak, District Rampur.
Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated. It is pointed out that the applicant is not nominated in the FIR. However, his name has been introduced, for the first time, through the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix which is a statement, in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, manoeuvred by the police. It is also pointed out that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been falsely nominated and credited with a role of taking away the prosecutrix to Haryana, along with Kuldeep and Nanhi @ Sangeeta, to a place called Rathauli in that State. It is said there that the main accused Tota Ram sold the prosecutrix to one Prem at Haryana for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, and, the applicant along with Kuldeep and Nanhi @ Sangeeta, took her to Haryana. It is pointed out that in the ongoing trial that is S. T. No. 247 of 2018, the prosecutrix has come up with categorical case in her examination-in-chief, deposing as PW-2, on 22.11.2018 that she does not know the applicant Umlesh; that accused Umlesh, Kuldeep and Nanhi @ Sangeeta did not take her to Didhauli, Haryana; that Kuldeep and Umlesh did not ravish her; that she took the name of these accused at the bidding of her father in the written report; and, that before the Magistrate, she nominated the aforesaid accused at the bidding of the police who threatened the prosecutrix that unless the applicant Umlesh and co-accused Kuldeep, were nominated in her statement before the Magistrate, the prosecutrix's family members would be implicated in a false case. It is said that it was on this account that she named the applicant and the co- accused before the Magistrate in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was declared hostile, and cross- examined by the prosecution, which she has firmly withstood, and maintained her stand, that the applicant Umlesh is not at all involved, in any manner.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail with the submission is that the applicant's name figures in the statement of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. However, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and that in the testimony of the prosecutrix in the ongoing trial, she has spoken exculpatory.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix has spoken exculpatory in unqualified terms in the ongoing trial, so far as the applicant is concerned, based on a plausible explanation for the change in her stance from what was said during the investigation, the fact that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also, there is no allegation of rape against the applicant, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Umlesh involved in Case Crime No. 385 of 2015 under Section 363, 373, 504, 506, 376 IPC, P.S. Milak, District Rampur be released on bail on executing a 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.
It is made clear that this order will not enure to the benefit of main accused Tota Ram.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 Deepak