Lakhandar Patel vs State Of U.P.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by prosecutrix herself, she is 18 years old, resident of Ghazipur, had gone by bus from Kanpur to Ghazipur to meet her Nani and during travel developed friendship with the Bus Conductor, the applicant, also obtained his mobile number and after meeting her Nani, she called the conductor and reached Ghazipur Bus Stand at 6:00 p.m., who committed rape on her and taken her to Varanasi and again attempted rape; that in her statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has repeated the same story and also stated that applicant assured her of marriage but disappeared; that no date or time of incident has been mentioned in the F.I.R.; that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecutrix under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and they are also in contradiction with the averments made in F.I.R.; that the prosecutrix is major and matured girl and her radiological age has been determined between 18-19 years; that since the prosecutrix during travel from Kanpur to Ghazipur had requested the applicant that she is in need of money and cannot buy a ticket, the applicant provided her help, upon which she got infatuated with the applicant and started putting pressure on him for making marriage and when he disclosed that he is already married, having a child and cannot make marriage with her, she has falsely implicated him; that the entire prosecution story is absolutely false, baseless and highly improbable; that the medical examination report does not support the prosecution case and committal of rape with her; that the applicant did not commit rape on the prosecutrix either inside the bus at Ghazipur or at Varanasi Bus Stand or at any place whatsoever; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 26.6.2017.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Lakhandar Patel be released on bail in Case Crime No.439 of 2017, under Sections 376 IPC, P.S. Sigra, District Varanasi on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.