Allahabad High Court
Rajnesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 July, 2021
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 437 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajnesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Geetam Singh,Sushil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Vashistha
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State through video conference and perused the record.
Shri Ajay Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for respondent has not joined the link of the office. I have taken the help of learned AGA for the State.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.289 of 2020, under sections 363, 366, 376, 352, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the commission of present offence. Submission is that the applicant was not named in the FIR and no single piece of evidence was come against the applicant during the course of investigation except that statement made by the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. The victims' statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C is not reliable because she was stated that the applicant along with his father and wife kept her in confinement and committed rape with her. The statement of the victim is not reliable because no a wife a illicit relationship of a man with any other women in her presence. The marriage of co-accused Sunil and victim was settled, therein the applicant is the mediator. As per the first information, the marriage was not solemnized. Therefore in compelling circumstances, they left their houses. The Statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is also not reliable on the ground that the victim was recovered alongwith co-accused from Kasganj and she has not given any explanation above the same. It is further submitted that the provision of Section 3/4 POCSO Act are also not attracted to the facts of this case. It is further submitted that the accused has no previous criminal history. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 15.10.2020 and if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but has not controverted the aforesaid facts by filing reply.
In light of the aforesaid arguments, looking to the facts of the case and taking into consideration that the prosecutrix and the accused both are belonging to the same community. This Court does not go into the age of the accused at present. Nature of offence, quantum of punishment and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is found to be a fit case for bail. The Accused is in jail since 10.10.2020 be enlarged on bail as contours for grant of bail as enumerated in National Investigation Agency V. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, AIR 2019 SC 1734 are fulfilled. This court has come to the conclusion that the accused is entitled to bail as his presence could be procured at the time of the trial. The judgment in the case of Manish Solanki V. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 4 SCC 340 will also enure for the benefit of the accused.
The contours for grant on bail as enunciated by the Apex Court will also permit this Court to grant bail to the accused
Let the applicant-Rajnesh be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.289 of 2020, under sections 363, 366, 376, 352, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 2.7.2021 / A.N. Mishra
