Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40813 of 2018 Applicant :- Afzal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Afzal in connection with Case Crime No.151 of 2018, under Sections 363, 376D, 328 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from sexual Offence (Prevention) Act, P.S. Pilkuwan, District Hapur.
Heard Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B.Singh, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated. It is argued that there is an old acquaintance between the prosecutrix, and, the applicant and that they wanted to marry each other. It is pointed out that the prosecutrix going by medico legal estimation of her age, has been found to be 17 years which giving the usual allowance of two years, would reckon her to be a major. It is submitted that she has implicated the applicant on account of pressure from her family who are averse to the marriage. He also argued that the false implication is a strategic implication at the instance of her family members in order to shake off the relationship between the parties.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail and invited the attention of the Court to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has come up with a categorical allegation of rape against the applicant along with three other co-accused. The allegation is about the abducting her after putting her to sleep employing some deleterious substance. It is alleged that she was in an unconscious state, and, was ravished all during the period of her confinement by the applicant and the co-accused. It is also alleged that she was beaten up and put under fear of death at gun point. It is also alleged that the prosecutrix was taken to Deoband for being sold off; she has categorically denied of being friends with the applicant, Afzal. Learned A.G.A. further submits that looking to the aforesaid statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected at this stage.
It has been pointed out that the applicant is in detention for more than one and a half years and charges have been framed before the trial court but trial is not proceeding.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within six months next from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate strict coercive measure for ensuring their presence. Once, the witnesses appear, they will not be discharged until their evidence is recorded.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 R./