Allahabad High Court
Mukesh vs State Of U.P. on 26 February, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8431 of 2019
Applicant :- Mukesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri A.P. Tiwari and Sri S.S. Tripathi, learned counsel jointly filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged with the delay of about 3 months and there is no satisfactory explanation of this delay. It has further been submitted that the victim is a married lady aged about 25 years. In her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that the applicant tried to commit rape upon her. In her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has not made any allegation of rape against the applicant. It has further been submitted that the medical report also does not corroborate the prosecution version. In fact, the sister of applicant namely Km. Pushpa has lodged an FIR against Devar of victim namely Angad on 3.5.2017 under section 452, 354B, 323, 504 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. In counter blast the complainant has lodged this false and frivolous FIR against the applicant making false allegation of rape. In fact, no such incident has taken place. There is no independent witness of the alleged occurrence. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 25.11.2018.
Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the victim in FIR as well as in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of rape against the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Mukesh involved in Case Crime No. 556 of 2017, under section 376, 354, 506 IPC, P.S. Khorabar, District Gorakhpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall 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 :- 26.2.2019
Masarrat
