Allahabad High Court
Guddu 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. - 15 of 2021
Applicant :- Guddu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Awasthi,Azmi Yousuf
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is named in the F.I.R. The informant who is father of the prosecutrix has named the applicant after the prosecutrix has narrated the incident to him, however, while giving statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that 5-6 relatives of Kallu has forcibly taken her inside the vehicle in which 5-6 unknown persons were sitting. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has denied the prosecution version in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that she could not recognize 5-6 unknown persons sitting in the vehicle whereas the informant has named the applicant in the F.I.R. on the narration of the prosecutrix which is not possible.
It is next submitted that the occurrence is on 13.06.2019 and the prosecutrix returned to home on 31.07.2020 and at that time neither any F.I.R. nor any missing report was lodged. First information report was lodged on 23.09.2019 after a delay of approximately three months with due deliberations and consultation. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has made allegation of rape against the applicant and also included the name of two co-accused persons. The testimony of the prosecutrix is not worthy of credence and has not corroborated by the medical report. The co-accused namely Budhram has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2021 passed in bail No. 105/2021. Charge sheet in the matter has been filed. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.10.2019 without having any criminal history.
It is further submitted that as per the family register the prosecutrix is 19 years old. Her bone age of 16 years. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 4531 "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 from jail 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. 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, and also considering the nature of allegations, 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, Guddu, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 443/2019, under Sections 363/366/376D/506 IPC and Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Isanagar, District - Lakhimpur, 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
R.C.
