Goldee v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44872 of 2023 Applicant :- Goldee Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar,Vishvanath Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Verma,Pragyakar Mani Tripathi Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pragyakar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 369 of 2023, under Sections 377 IPC and Section 5(g)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred in the night intervening 06/07.07.2023 and the first information report was lodged on 08.07.2023. The delay in the facts of the present case is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. There are inconsistencies in the statement of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. It is contended that in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is no allegation of inappropriate behavior against the applicant. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. narrated an exaggerated version to aggravate the offence and save the failing prosecution case. The said inconsistencies discredits the prosecution case. As per the medical report, no external injury was seen. The applicant is in jail since 31.07.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that there are inconsistencies in the statement of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. As per the medical report, no external injury was seen. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when 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, 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 Goldee, 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 the 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.

¶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 :- 1.11.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad