Urmila vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr

Heard Mr. Subhash, deponent who has filed affidavit in support of the bail application, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is a married lady with no criminal history. The statement(s) of the prosecutrix who is aged about 17 years are contradictory. While giving statement under Section 164 CrPC, she has changed the version and role of introducing the prosecutrix with the main accused Lavkush Goswami has been assigned to the present applicant.

The main accused Lavkush Goswami has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 22.2.2021 passed in Bail No.7902 of 2020. Other co-accused Suman has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 10.2.2021 passed in Bail No.10877 of 2020 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Parity from co-accused has been sought on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 31.10.2020.

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail 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 she 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 Urmila involved in Case Crime No.129/2020 under Sections 363, 376, 368, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 and 16/17 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Khandasa, district Ayodhya be released on bail on her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.