Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 2 June, 2016
Bench: Abhai Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18255 of 2016
Applicant :- Ram Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complaint, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
F.I.R was lodged on 29.03.2016 at 7:10 p.m under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, wherein it is stated that complainant's daughter aged about 14 years was abducted by the accused - appellant on motorcycle and when objected she was threatened with country made pistol.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused - applicant that prosecutrix is a consenting party. She is aged bout 19 years of old and on freewill she has gone with the accused - applicant.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complaint argued that the age of the victim is 15 years only and a complaint has been initiated against the doctor, who has reported the age of victim 19 years old.
In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix has stated that applicant - accused was having sexual relationship with her prior to the incident. She has assigned role of the applicant that she was forcibly taken away by the applicant-accused in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, but in the medical report nothing adverse was found. No injury on the body or private part was found.
It can be inferred from the above facts that learned counsel for the complaint is not correct and it can not be said that victim was only 14 - 15 years old at the time of incident. The conclusion drawn in the medical report can not be ignored.
It is next contended that the applicant is in jail since 01.04.2016, with no previous criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Seeing the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material brought on record, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, it is a fit case for grant of bail. However, any observation made herein above, will not affect the trial of the case.
Let the applicant - Ram Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 72 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C, Police Station - Chandpa, District - Hathras, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled.
Order Date :- 02.06.2016.
Vinod.
