ANOOP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Gone through the FIR, bail rejection order, other documents annexed hereto as well as supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant annexing therewith statements of two girls, namely, Smt. Neha and Kumari Nida recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It comes out that the prosecutrix were recovered after five days from the date of their abduction, but they have stated that they had gone along with the applicant out of their own free-will. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Ankit Pandey has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2439 (B) of 2009 and parity has been claimed. No doubt from the possession of the applicant prosecutrix had been recovered, but the case of parity is made out. Accordingly, I hereby direct that applicant-Anoop Kumar Srivastava, accused of Case Crime No. 52 of 2009, under Sections 363/366 IPC, police station Aminabad, district Lucknow be also released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.