Bail application allowed for applicant Ranpal implicating offences under IPC and POCSO. Court noted exculpatory deposition by prosecutrix in a related trial creating grave doubt. Bail granted on conditions including execution of bond and sureties.
Release on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each.
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. - 45644 of 2018
Applicant :- Ranpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Ranpal in connection with Case Crime No. 63 of 2016, under Sections 376-D, 354-B IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act, P.S. Narsaina, District Bulandshahr.
Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B.Singh, learned AGA alongwith Sri Ashutosh Diljan appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the deposition of the prosecutrix in the ongoing trial being S.T. No. 366 of 2017, State vs. Deepak, before the Court of the 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar dated 24.08.2018, where deposing as PW-2, she has stated that the applicant and the co-accused have not ravished her nor has the applicant shot a video, as the prosecution case goes. She has refused to support the prosecution case and submitted that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was confronted with, had been made under the influence and advice of police and natives of the village. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that he is a respectable man with no criminal history and is in jail since 19.4.2016, that is to say, a period of about two years and a three quarter, without an end to the trial
in sight. It is further submitted that co-accused, Deepak, against whom there is an identical case, and, likewise the prosecutrix has disowned allegations against him, this Court has admitted him to the concession of bail vide order dated 17.11.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17443 of 2017 and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea and submitted that the prosecutrix has deposed exculpatory in favour of the applicant on account of a settlement between the parties upon which the law would frown, looking to the nature of the offence. He has pointed out that in the cross examination of the prosecutrix she has said that there is a compromise between the parties, and, that before the deposition she had not told anybody else that the applicant or the other co-accused are innocent. Though, she has said that it is incorrect to say that she is deposing to the said effect because she wants to spare the accused of consequences of the prosecution, but the truth is evident. Learned A.G.A. submits that on this state of evidence, it is best left to the assessment of the trial court, but bail cannot be granted.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the clear exculpatory deposition of the prosecutrix in the ongoing trial which notwithstanding what is elicited during cross examination, creates a grave doubt about the prosecution story prima facie, 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 Ranpal involved in Case Crime No. 63 of 2016, under Sections 376-D, 354-B IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act, P.S. Narsaina, District Bulandshahr 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 :- 30.11.2018 BKM/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant implicated in offences under IPC and POCSO.
Whether the exculpatory deposition of the prosecutrix in a related trial justifies bail.
Whether the applicant qualifies for bail on grounds of innocence and parity.
Ranpal
State Of U.P.
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
