Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28649 of 2021 Applicant :- Vijay Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Verma,Akansha Verma,Siya Ram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ziya Uddin
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. today in Court, are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged incident of rape has been shown of 25.02.2021 and second incident of abusing and threatening has been shown of 13.03.2021 but First Information Report has been lodged with long delay on 02.04.2021. In the FIR, it was alleged that on 25.02.2021, applicant and co-accused Pradeep Maurya have committed rape upon prosecutrix and that on 13.03.2021 they have tried to overpower the prosecutrix at her house but no FIR was lodged after those incidents. It has been been further submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has developed the version by stating that on 25.02.2021, after alleged incident of rape, when her parents have enquired about the blood stains lying on her bed, she has told the entire incident to her mother but no such blood stained bedding has been seized during investigation. It was also submitted that as per details of mobile phone of applicant, at the time of alleged incident, his location was at his shop, which is at a sufficiently long distance of spot. It has been further argued that in the I.G.R.S. report submitted by the police, the allegations of prosecutrix were found false and baseless. Learned counsel has submitted that in fact the said police report and call detail record of the phone of applicant were ignored by the Investigating Officer and charge-sheet was filed in an arbitrary manner. It was also submitted that as per ossification test, the age of victim has been shown between 18-20 years and thus, she is a major lady. It has been further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Pradeep Maurya has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 09.09.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.-26910 of 2021. It has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.05.2020 having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in First Information Report. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that as per High School Certificate, the date of birth of victim girl is 03.09.2003 and thus, at the time of alleged incident of 25.02.2021 she was aged about 17 years and four months and that in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has made allegations of rape against applicant. However, it has not been disputed that similarly placed co- accused Pradeep Maurya has already been granted bail by this Court.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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 Vijay Yadav involved in Case Crime No.234 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376D of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. 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.
5. 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 them 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 condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Neeraj