Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45611 of 2018 Applicant :- Ankit Balmik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- M.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Ankit Balmik in connection with Case Crime No. 303 of 2018 under Section 376AB IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Sasnigate, District Aligarh.
Heard Sri M.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime and no incident of the kind ever took place. It is said that the applicant has been maliciously implicated as the complainant was involved in electricity theft and caught, where he doubts that the applicant's family were involved in reporting the matter to the electricity authority and the police.
Learned AGA has strongly opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the victim is a minor and aged about 7-8 years, and, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has clearly spoken inculpatory. Learned AGA has taken the court through the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is indeed inculpatory.
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 fact that the prosecutrix is a young child of 7 years who has spoken inculpatory in her statement 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.
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 :- 30.11.2018 Deepak