Ramlal @ Paltu vs State Of U.P.
2019 Latest Caselaw 350 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 68
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8477 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Ramlal @ Paltu
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- B.N.Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim is a sister of brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of applicant. The FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by Ramphal, brother of victim against applicant, Jagdish, Tunda and his wife Arti. Jagdish is brother-in-law (Sadhu) of informant and Tunda is father-in-law of informant. The victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not made any allegation of rape against the applicant. In her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that there was love affairs in between the victim and applicant. The applicant and other co-accused brought her at Delhi where she remained with the applicant about 6 months and 20 days. The victim remained with the applicant at Delhi about 6 months and 20 days but during this period she has not made any hue and cry to save herself. Thereafter, in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has made allegation of rape against the applicant and co-accused Jagdish and Shiv Kumar which is not probable and believable. As per school record at the time of alleged incident the age of the victim was more than 17 and 1/2 years. In fact, she was major. There is material contradictions in the statements of victim recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. False allegation has been against the applicant. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since21.8.2016.

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer 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 Ramlal @ Paltu involved in Case Crime No. 45 of 2016, under section 363, 366, 376(2)(D), 504, 344 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Rath, District Hamirpur 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 :- 1.3.2019

Masarrat