Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 800 (ALL)

Rakesh v. State of U. P.

2017-03-21

NAND BAJPAYEE

body2017
JUDGMENT Nand Bajpayee, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that according to the medical examination the age of the girl is about 19 years but actually she was much above that age and was fully grown up major girl. Further submission is that when the victim was examined by the Investigating Officer she admitted to have called the co-accused Ramveer herself and then she also admitted to have left her house on the pretext of going to a tailor shop. She further admitted to have gone along with co-accused Ramveer and then to have lived along with him. She also admitted to have established physical relationship with co-accused Ramveer. Submission is that absolutely no allegation was made against the applicant earlier and later on when she was medically examined by the doctor the victim was also inquired about the incident on which she again gave the version that she had gone along with the co-accused Ramveer on her own volition and also contracted marriage with him. Submission is that when the victim was examined by the Magistrate, she has made the allegation that the applicant had committed rape upon her, but this allegation stands sharply contradicted by her previous statement which very strongly indicates the falsity of the allegation. Contention is that the complete omission of any such allegation against the applicant at the earlier stage makes out a prima facie case of bail in favour of applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.01.2017 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant does not have any criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.01.2017 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant does not have any criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Let the applicant-Rakesh, involved in Case Crime No. 1950 of 2013, u/s 363, 366, 376 and Section-6 of POCSO Act, P.S.-Baradari, District-Bareilly be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions : - (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant’s bail. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.