AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a consenting parity; as per the educational certificate, the prosecutrix is above 17 years at the time of incident. Initially in the F.I.R., the allegation was made against three accused persons, however, while filing the charge sheet, names of the co-accused Khalid Khan and Sajid Khan have been dropped by the investigating officer. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has stated that she on her own accord went away with the accused-applicant and married him in a temple and she resided with him for two days. The medical examination report does not supports the prosecution story. It is further submitted that no mark of external or internal injury has been found upon any part of the body of the prosecutrix.
It is next submitted that no sign of force or penetration has been found by the medical examiner. It is submitted that seventeen years age is age of discretion and the applicant is entitled to give benefit of plus-minus of two years on higher side. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2020 without having any previous criminal history.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Sabban Khan, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0231/2020, under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station - Hariyawan, District - Hardoi, 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) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.