Manoj v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42494 of 2023 Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Pushkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 490 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Khair, District Aligarh during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 26.06.2023 and the first information report was lodged on 02.07.2023. The delay in the facts of the present case is fatal to the prosecution case. It is further contended that there are major inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that she is aged 18 years and she left her house voluntarily and married the applicant. Upon the victim going into the custody of her parents, she narrated an entirely different version. Further, there is no allegation of kidnapping or abduction or sexual assault against the applicant. It is next contended that the inconsistencies in the said two statements of the victim discredit the prosecution case. The applicant is in jail since

21.07.2023 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that there are inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and there is no allegation of kidnapping or abduction or sexual assault against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant-Manoj, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad