Allahabad High Court
Pintu @ Virendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- BAIL No. - 278 of 2021
Applicant :- Pintu @ Virendra Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Kumar Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Anil Kumar Awasthi
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as complainant's counsel who has filed vakalatnama, which is taken on record, and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 24.10.2020. Charge-sheet in the matter has been filed. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 27.7.2020. The first information report has been lodged on 22.10.2020 with delay. Bone age of the prosecutrix is 16 years. As per educational certificate also, she is more than 16 years of age.
It is submitted that actual age of the prosecutrix is 18 years as has been stated in the marriage agreement which is on record and it has not been made part of the case diary deliberately by the investigating officer. The mother of the prosecutrix is signatory of the agreement as witness No.2. The statement of mother has also not been taken by the investigating officer. The prosecutrix has changed the prosecution version while giving statement under section 161 CrPC. The said statement under Section 161 CrPC has again been changed by the prosecutrix while giving statement under Section 164 CrPC. It is contended that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not worthy of credence. The prosecutrix was a consenting party. In the medico legal examination, no external or internal injury has been seen during examination. No opinion about rape has been given by the doctor.
Applicant's counsel has relied on judgment dated 26.4.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 Suhani and another vs. State of U.P. and others.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Pintu alias Virendra Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.541 of 2020 under Sections 376, 308, 504 I.P.C. and sections 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and section 3(2)VA SC/ST Act, P.S. Unchahar, district Raebareli, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
kkb/
