High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32573 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Gaur,Ankit Shukla,Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. As per ofÏce report dated 04.01.2023, notice has been served upon the informant but no one has put in appearance on his behalf. Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ankit Shukla and Mr. Mayank Gaurav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Advocate representing the State. Government The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 276 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Cantt, District-Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. As per the prosecution case in brief, informant who is father of the victim has lodged an FIR on 27.04.2022 for the offence under Section 363 IPC against one unknown person with the allegation inter-alia that his daughter had left the house for coaching but did not reached there. Thereafter he received a call from a student of coaching in which he heard the cry of his daughter and thereafter the said mobile phone got switched off. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the prosecution case, on 28.04.2022 the victim herself reached at the Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow and from there she made a phone call to her father, on which the informant reached at the police station Hazratganj, Lucknow where the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 29.04.2022 in which she has disclosed inter-alia that the present applicant Sandeep is her boyfriend and she was in touch with him since last one year. They were also in a relationship. On 27.04.2022 when she was going to her coaching by an auto, three persons (two male and one female) met her and told her that the present applicant Sandeep has consumed poison and his health is very bad. They have also made her to listen the recording of Sandeep. Believing their words, she herself went with them but on the way, one person has committed misdeed with her and thereafter she was left by them on Ayodhya highway, from where she had gone to Lucknow by bus. It is further pointed out that after recording the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she was handed over to her father and thereafter her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 07.05.2022 in which she has changed her statement and for the first time made allegation against the applicant by stating inter-alia that she was enticed by the applicant who, on the pretext of marriage, has been making physical relation with her since last one year. She further stated that the applicant had also made her video and on the pretext of said video, he used to blackmail her. She has also stated that earlier she had given a false statement before the police. It is also pointed out that as per ossification test report dated 05.05.2022 of the victim, she is aged about 18 years. On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the victim was having love affair with the applicant and when this fact came into the knowledge of the informant, he has falsely implicated the applicant. Victim has changed her statement under the pressure of her parents. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that innocence of the applicant cannot be ad- judged at pre-trial stage but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there are major contradictions in the statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim which alter the entire prosecution case. The victim is aged about 18 years who, as per her own statement, was in touch with the applicant since last one year, therefore, possibility of false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 31.1.2023/Saurabh