Allahabad High Court
Rajkumar Alias Sannu Alias Sonu Alias ... vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 ... on 10 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2818 of 2022 Applicant :- Rajkumar Alias Sannu Alias Sonu Alias Rajkumar Alias Sannu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh,Karunesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Karunesh Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Rajkumar Alias Sannu Alias Sonu Alias Rajkumar Alias Sannu for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 316 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya (Faizabad), during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. However, during the course of investigation the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated to be enticed away by the instant applicant, however, no allegation of committing rape has been levelled by her against the applicant either in the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
It is further submitted that during the course of trial the informant as well as the prosecutrix/victim have been testified as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 before the trial court and both of them have not supported the story of the prosecution while P.W.-1 (Informant) has chosen to state that the F.I.R. was lodged by him on the basis of information provided by someone else, the prosecutrix, who has been testified as P.W.-2 before the court below has stated that the instant applicant did not commit any wrong with her and her brother had lodged the F.I.R. on the instigation of other villagers and pertaining to her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that it was given under the influence and intimidation given by the police personnels.
Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted that since the complainant/victim have not supported the version of the prosecution, it would be impossible for the prosecution to secure conviction of the applicant before the trial court and since the prosecutrix has completely denied the version of the prosecution of being raped, her age is immaterial.
It is next submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 02.09.2021 and he is not having any criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that in the F.I.R., which was lodged by the brother of the victim, the instant applicant was not named. However, his complicity has surfaced in the statement of the prosecutrix/victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, no allegation of rape was levelled against him in those statements of the prosecutrix. During the course of trial the prosecutrix have been testified as P.W.-2 and complainant as P.W.-1. Both of them have not imputed any allegation or imputation against the instant applicant. Applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 02.09.2021 without any criminal antecedents and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.
Let the accused/applicant- Rajkumar Alias Sannu Alias Sonu Alias Rajkumar Alias Sannu involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) 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.
Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Praveen