Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 December, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45916 of 2019 Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of informant/complainant and the same is taken on record.
Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit, the same is also taken on record.
Heard Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Hridaywati Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 219 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Rudrapur, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial.
As per F.I.R. which has been lodged by the father of the victim, victim was 14 years of age and was mentally retarded and was suffering from partial deafness. Her marriage was fixed with a boy in Bahraich but the co-accused- Mukesh came to the house of informant as 'Fua' of the bride to be and thereafter he enticed away the victim.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that accused-applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. In statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., no allegation is made against the accused-applicant by her, rather the same is made against co-accused Mukesh, who is stated to have taken her away misrepresenting that he had come from the side of Ramesh Kumar Yadav, whose marriage had been settled with her and thereafter he committed rape upon her along with two other persons at the point of knife. Subsequently she married the accused-applicant. It is further argued that victim did not give consent to get her internal examination done. In medical examination report, opinion is expressed that no definite opinion can be given about her having been raped. Accused-applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.8.2019. If he is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail stating that in the Certificate of class 8th issued by Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, her date of birth is recorded as 30.7.2005 by which she would be near about 14 years and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has made allegation against the applicant that accused-applicant was in touch with the co-accused- Mukesh and later on the victim had married the applicant.
In view of above arguments, looking to the fact that in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., no allegation against the accused applicant is made of having committed rape upon her and the same is made against the co-accused- Mukesh, taking into consideration the quantum of punishment, nature of offence and period of detention, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Ramesh Kumar Yadav involved in aforesaid crime 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 that:-
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 :- 19.12.2019 A.P. Pandey