Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35578 of 2023 Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Narayan Swaroop,Lalit Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions submits that notice of the instant bail application has been served upon the opposite party no. 2-informant as well as upon the opposite party no. 3-Child Welfare Committee, Etah on 10.08.2023. The receiving endorsements as produced by learned A.G.A. are taken on record. However, when the case is taken up, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

¶3Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶4The 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. 82 of 2023, under Sections 452, 377 I.P.C. and 5M/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Baghwala, District Etah during the pendency of the trial.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case owing to other disputes between the parties. The incident is alleged to have occurred on

11.04.2023 and the first information report was lodged on

12.04.2023. The delay in the facts of the present case is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim was examined on 12.04.2023. As per the medical report, no external injury was seen. There are inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.. The medical report does not support the prosecution version. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 17.04.2023 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶6Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶7Having 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. As per the medical report, no external injury was seen. The medical report does not support the prosecution version. At present there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost six 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.

¶8Let the applicant-Mukesh Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

(iv) shall appear on the first Sunday of every month at the police station concerned.

¶9In 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 :- 31.10.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad