Allahabad High Court
Mayank vs The State Of U.P. on 6 July, 2018
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27806 of 2016
Applicant :- Mayank
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 611 of 2015, under Section 323, 376, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act & Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S.- Kotwali Fatehpur, District- Fatehpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the incident was alleged to have taken place on 24.09.2015 in which the applicant had allegedly dragged up the victim, Gujan Devi to the village graveyard when she had gone to ease herself and after tearing her clothes, started committing wrong act with her. However, on the information given to her mother by someone, she reached there and on seeing her, the applicant ran away. He next submitted that as per the medical evidence, the age of the victim is 15 years but the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case. The F.I.R. of the incident which had taken place on 24.09.2015, was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of three days on 27.09.2015. It is pertinent to note that before the lodging of the F.I.R., an altercation had taken place between the applicant and the mother of the victim on 26.09.2015 in which the police had intervened and arrested the applicant whereafter proceedings u/s 107/116/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. At that time, the mother of the victim had not complained about the incident to the police which clearly indicates that the entire prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R., is false, concocted and afterthought. Even the prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has not clearly stated that the applicant had committed rape on her. However, under the circumstances of the case, no reliance can be placed on her statement. According to the medical report of the prosecutrix, there is no proof of any injury on either her private parts or other parts of the body. It is lastly submitted that the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 28.01.2016 is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicant, Mayank be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 611 of 2015, under Section 323, 376, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act & Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S.- Kotwali Fatehpur, District- Fatehpur subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him.
(b) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
Order Date :- 6.7.2018
KS
