Sanjay vs State Of Up
2016 Latest Caselaw 651 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- BAIL No. - 2050 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Sanjay
 
Opposite Party :- State Of Up
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ran Vijay Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant be taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned  A.G.A. and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. In fact at the time of the alleged incident both victims Km. Preeti and Km. Angita were major. The victim Preeti was a consenting party with co-accused Umesh and victim Angita was a consenting party with co-accused Kuldeep. In medical reports the age of both the victims have been found about 19 years. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Km. Preeti has stated that she had gone with co-accused Umesh on her own sweet will and her sister Km. Angita had gone with co-accused Kuldeep on her own sweet will. The victim Angita in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she had solemnized her marriage with Kuldeep. The applicant is borther-in-law of co-accused Kuldeep due to which he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The statement of mother of victim namely Asha @ Chhedana is not believable. It has further been submitted that medical reports also does not corroborate the prosecution version. The co-accused Kuldeep has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2016, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since 20.08.2015.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Sanjay involved in Case Crime No.257 of 2015, Under Sections 364, 342, 376-D, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Asoha, District Unnao, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:

1.   The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 

2.   The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial.

3.   The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to  cancel the bail of the applicant.

Order Date :- 16.3.2016

Jitendra