Allahabad High Court
Satyaveer vs State Of U.P. on 25 August, 2015
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3287 of 2014
Applicant :- Satyaveer
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Chauhan,Prashant Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Submission of counsel for the applicant is that actually the victim Somwati is a major girl and the Radiological report does not indicate her correct age. Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the medical examination of the girl in which all features of a grown up girl has been observed and noted by the doctor. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the Parivar Register which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the bail application. According to which, the date of birth of the girl Somwati is 2.6.1993. This Parivar Register relates to the village of the applicant and in the Parivar Register of that village, the name of the victim has been entered as wife of Satyaveer. Counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the statement given by the girl to the Investigating Officer in which in so many words she admitted that she was carrying on relationship with the applicant since about one year back and she herself called the applicant so that she may go away with him. It was also admitted by the girl that she herself left her house and went to Arel Ghat, from where she had gone to the house of the applicant along with him and lived there as husband and wife and contracted marriage with the applicant on her own volition. It is also pointed out by counsel for the applicant that the medical examination of the girl does not indicate any mark of injury on her body which may show any coercion or resistance. Counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the girl given before the Magistrate in which she has expressed her desire to live with the applicant and has stated that her father has falsely implicated the applicant. It was also admitted by the girl in the statement given before the Magistrate that she had contracted marriage with the applicant. Counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Magistrate with regard to the custody of the victim girl, who after perusing the entire record and statement of the girl, had thought it fit to handover the custody of the girl to the father of the applicant where, according to the counsel, she is still living. Submission of the counsel is that as this relationship is not acceptable to the parents of the girl, therefore, a false and frivolous case has been fastened upon the applicant. It was next submitted that the other five co-accused persons against whom the allegations of taking away the victim girl were made, they have already been found innocent and a final report has been submitted in their favour. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant has already spent two years in jail and is languishing behind the bars since 16.08.2013 having no criminal history and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Satyaveer involved in Case Crime No. 195 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Kampil, District Farrukhabad, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 25.8.2015
Rmk.
