Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29115 of 2018 Applicant :- Balloo Ram Alias Rajesh Roshan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lavlesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Lavlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Balloo Ram Alias Rajesh Roshan in Case Crime No. 384 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2) (i)(n), 376-D, 342, 506, 120-B I.P.C. 5(g)/6, 5(I)/6 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station- Cholapur, District- Varanasi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by the first informant. The applicant and the informant belong to the same family and they are co-sharers of some immovable property and there is land dispute between the families since long. It is next contended that the F.I.R. was lodged with inordinate delay of ten days against the parents and brothers of the applicant. It is alleged that the informant's daughter while she was going along with the accused it was witnessed by one Jeevan Ram who had informed about the alleged kidnapping of victim by the applicant and other co-accused. During investigation statement of Jeevan Ram was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In which he has stated that the victim had ran away with somebody and his name has been falsely shown as a witness by the first informant. It is next contended that the victim is aged about 17 years in the medical report and as per her statement the applicant and his real brother Lallu both of them had raped her. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is highly improbable and unbelievable that the real brothers would commit rape together. Applicant is languishing in jail since 12.01.2016 and there is no substantial progress in trial, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that in fact the victim as per her school mark-sheet was less than 16 years of age and the trial is going on which the statement of the victim has already been recorded. He further pointed out that the bail application of co-accused Lallu @ Rakesh Roshan has been rejected by the court by an order dated 05.12.2017. Therefore, the applicant is also not entitled to be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. The prayer for bail is declined at this stage.
The application for bail is, hereby, rejected without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Vikas/-