Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41872 of 2018 Applicant :- Vikrant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, appearing on behalf of State.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Vikrant in connection with Case Crime No. 360 of 2018, under Sections 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ramala, District Baghpat.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix going by a medical certification of her age, has been certified to be about 18 years. In this connection, he has taken the Court through the age certificate dated 10.07.2018 issued by the C.M.O. Baghpat. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that though, it has been said by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C that on the day of occurrence, the applicant was alone, when she went over to meet his sister with whom she is friends and the applicant ravished her, she also says that the applicant said that she should keep her mouth shut as he would marry her. It is said in the statement that this happened a year and a half back, and, that thereafter, she went to the applicant's place a number of times, on each such occasion, the applicant would become physically intimate. On the foot of the said facts, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of a relationship, not rape, that has not materialized on account of which, an allegation of rape has been levelled.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has invited the Courts attention to the same statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and pointed out that the Magistrate put a pointed question to the prosecutrix why for a period of a year and half, she did not reveal to anyone that the said offence had been committed; it is pointed out that the prosecutrix said that, that was on account of fear.
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 conduct of the prosecutrix in not reporting the matter for a period of one year, and, more than that, the fact that after the occurrence, the prosecutrix still frequented the house of the applicant where admittedly, they had physical relations on each such occasion, 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 Vikrant involved in Case Crime No. 360 of 2018, under Sections 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ramala, District Baghpat 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.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Neeraj