A single judge in a bail application considered the submission of the applicant that the victim was a major girl and her statements were contradictory. The court held that there was no material to indicate tampering with evidence and that the applicant might be enlarged on bail.
Released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties on conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27627 of 2018
Applicant :- Mohd. Hasib @ Rumi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aacharya Rajesh Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the age of the victim as has been disclosed by the victim herself in her statement given before the Magistrate, was 19 years and she was fully grown up major girl at the time of incident. Further submission is that though the applicant was not nominated in the F.I.R. But later on, when the victim was examined by the Investigating Officer for the first time, she implicated the applicant. But even at that stage the allegations that were made against the applicant, were in fact of such nature which would hardly constitute any offence against him as it has been admitted in so many words by the victim that it was she herself, who initiated and insisted to elope with the applicant as she was disgruntled with her family life in her parental house and she also denied allegation of committing rape in her first statement recorded before the investigating officer. Later on when she was examined before the Magistrate she did not make even a whisper against the applicant and all the allegations were made against another co-accused Dinesh. Yet again when she was further examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., she tried to implicate both, the applicant as well as the coaccused Dinesh. Submission is that constant fluctuation in the version and diagonal contradictions in her statement given from time to time expose the falsity of the allegations and it is not difficult to infer that she being a major girl was herself a party in leaving her house. At any rate, submission is that complete omission of the applicant's name in her statement given before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. makes out a prima facie case for bail in favour of the 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 a nd is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 24.5.2018 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. 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- Mohd. Hasib@Rumi, involved in Case Crime No. 86 of 2018, u/ss. 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S.Phulpur, District- Allahabad, 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.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018
Naresh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in a case involving alleged offence under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the conviction would be affected if the applicant was released on bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohd. Hasib @ Rumi
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
