High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51594 of 2021 Applicant :- Shahdab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Faya Nath Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Faya Nath Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. Instant bail application has been filed by applicant- Shahdab seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 815 of 2015 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Baraut, District-Baghpat, during pendency of trial. 4. It transpires from record record in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 07.09.2015, a delayed
Legal Reasoning
F.I.R. dated 10.09.2015 was lodged by first informant-Sri Kayyum (father of prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 815 of 2015 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Baraut, District-Baghpat. In the aforesaid F.I.R. two persons, namely, Jatin and Deepak have been arraigned as named accused. 5. In brief, according to prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that named accused kidnapped the minor daughter of first informant namely Nargis. The F.I.R. further states that prosecutrix took away Rs. 70,000/- with her, which was kept at home. 6. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of afore-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was recovered on 06.10.2015. Thereafter, statement of prosecutrix was recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Copy of same is on record as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of present application for bail. Prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has tried to implicate present applicant but there is no denial of the fact that the prosecutrix herself went to the house of Shabana wife of Naseem and Phullo wife of Rais. The prosecutrix has denied her internal medical examination. Ultimately, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Copy of same is on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. Prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has reiterated her earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She has further supported the alleged criminality, which was committed upon her by the accused-applicant. 7. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer recovered the Identity Card of the prosecutrix in respect of the Class Xth Examination, wherein date of birth of prosecutrix has been mentioned as 14.09.1997. The occurrence in question has occurred on 07.09.2015. As such the prosecutrix was aged about 18 years, 4 months and 23 days on the date of occurrence. Ultimately, upon completion of investigation of afore-mentioned case crime number Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet dated 23.09.2021 whereby applicant alone has been charge-sheeted under sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. whereas two named accused have been exculpated..
Legal Reasoning
8. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in afore-mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that prosecutrix is major as she was aged about 18 years, four months and 23 days on the date of alleged incident. Learned counsel for applicant has then invited the attention of the court to the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof, he contends that prosecutrix is a consenting party as the prosecutrix has remained with applicant from 14.09.2015 to 05.10.2015 i.e. for almost one month. Prosecutrix has refused her medical examination. Learned counsel for applicant contends that in absence of any medical absence, no conviction of applicant is possible for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. It is lastly contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except present one. Applicant is jail since 20.09.2021. As such, he has undergone more than six and a half months of incarceration. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial. Charge-sheet has been submitted against applicant. As such, evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, therefore, custodial arrest of applicants is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, learned counsel for applicant thus urged that applicant be enlarged on bail. 9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is a charge-sheeted accused therefore, applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. Learned counsel for first informant submits that the applicant has dislodged the modesty of a young girl aged about 18 years. Therefore no indulgence in favour of applicant be granted by this Court. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. 10. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. 11. Let the applicant-Shahdab involved in aforesaid case crime number 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) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence. (ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison 13. Accordingly, present bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 29.3.2022 YK Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.03.31 10:26:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad