Single judge allowed bail application. Court noted prima facie evidence that prosecutrix is a major and her exculpatory statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., finding it a fit case for bail despite severity of charges.
Application allowed; applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, threats, and re-offending.
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. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43456 of 2017
Applicant :- Mukesh Chandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Mukesh Chandra, in Case Crime No. 410 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section ¾ Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj.
Heard Sri Raju Kannaujia, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Ashutosh Diljan, appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He has invited the attention of the Court to the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age, vide medical report dated 29.7.2017 where on the basis of an ossification test, she has been found to be above 18 years. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking to the said report, the prosecutirx is ex-facie a major. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix, recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 29.7.2017, where the prosecutrix has said in unqualified words that she has married the applicant two months antedating the time of her statement and is living with him as his lawfully wedded wife. He has further stated that she wants to live with the applicant. The prosecutrix has further specifically stated that the First Information Report that has been lodged by her father and brother, is outrightly false.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegation, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that prosecutrix is prima facie a mjor and the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. is clearly exculpatory but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .
Let the applicant, Mukesh Chandra, in Case Crime No.410 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section ¾ Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 17.11.2018 Puspendra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for bail is maintainable given the gravity of the offences and prima facie evidence pointing to the prosecutrix being a major.
Whether the conditions of bail should be framed to prevent tampering with evidence and harassment of witnesses.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mukesh Chandra
Munir
Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
