Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45811 of 2018 Applicant :- Arvind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Arvind, in Case Crime No.340 of 2018, under Sections 323, 376-D IPC, and Section 4 POCSO Act, Police Station, Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, has put in appearance on behalf of the applicant after a 'no objection' granted by the counsel Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, who drew up and filed this application for bail.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Rajkumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He has invited the attention of the Court to the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age, that has been opined to be 16 to 17 years based on an ossification test by the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahr vide his certificate dated 3.7.2018. It is submitted that going by the aforesaid estimated medical age with the usual variation of two years, or even one, the prosecutrix would reckon to be a major. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is is that the allegation of rape is against co- accused Abhishek and not Arvind (the applicant) as would appear from a perusal of the FIR, the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and the statement made to the doctor during her medico legal examination. As such, the applicant is entitled to the indulgence of bail whose case is distinguishable from the main accused Abhishek, against whom there is an allegation of rape.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that a perusal of the FIR, the statements under Sections 161 164 Cr.P.C., and the statement made before the doctor, there is a consistent stand of the prosecutrix that she was waylaid by the two accused, Abhishek (non applicant) and Arvind (the applicant), who dragged her to a temple where Abhishek ravished her alone and the applicant pinned her down to facilitate Abhishek.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the applicant has played an active part in the commission of rape by pinning down the prosecutrix, while the co- accused Abhishek ravished her, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
The bail application, accordingly, stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that trial pending before the concerned court be concluded expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. 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 shall initiate necessary coercive measures for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 NSC