Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1499 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rafi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Madan Singh,I.M.Khan,Rizwan Ahmad Qureshi Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate,K.D. Tiwari Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the
record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submits that as per the
the medical report age of the prosecutrix is about 19 years and no definite
opinion about rape has been given by the doctor. He further submits that
neither any external nor internal injury was found on the private parts or the
person of the prosecutrix. He further submits that there is material
contradiction in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161
CrPc, 164 CrPC and FIR. He further referred to the statement of the
prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC wherein the prosecutrix made
allegation of rape against two persons including the applicant, however, in her
subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she made allegations
against three persons of committing rape on her. He further submits that in the
FIR, allegations of committing the said offence has been made against five
persons, as such, there is inconsistencies in the prosecution story which
cannot be relied upon.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that a compromise has
already been entered into between the parties and the applicant has agreed to
marry with the prosecutrix.
Sri Farid Ahmad Quraishi, learned counsel for the complainant has not
disputed the factum that the compromise has already been entered into
between the parties and referred to para-10 of the counter affidavit which is
quoted herein below;
“That in reply to the contents of paragraph nos. 24 of the affidavit it is
submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties in the
panchayat held by the villagers in the village and the accused/applicant is
ready to marry with the victim, Km. Tamanna, as such, there is no
justification of the confinement of the applicant in jail. The copy of the
compromise between the parties dated 23.4.2010, is being filed herewith and
marked as Annexure no. CA-1 to the affidavit.”
He further submits that the co-accused Atik Ahmad had already been released
on bail by this Court on 6.7.2009 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3829 of
2009.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the
accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Rafi involved in Case Crime No. 269 of 2008 under
Sections 363, 367, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Chhajlait, District Moradabad 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:-
(i)The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurise/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 29.7.2010
vinay