Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17960 of 2019 Applicant :- Firoj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lav Srivastava,Kamlesh Singh,Sr. Adv. V.P. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This is Second Bail Application on behalf of the accused applicant involved in case crime no. 108 of 2017 (S. T. No. 32 of 2017 State Vs. Firoj), under Sections 452, 354, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rampur Kharkhana, district Deoria.
Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that victim is a major girl as per Radiological Report. She was a consenting party. Fact witnesses have been examined in the matter. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the statement of P.W.-3 particularly the cross examination and argued that facts and circumstances stated by the victim in the cross examination clearly reveal that she was a consenting party. It is also argued that there is major contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses on material points. FIR was lodged belatedly.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that this is second bail application and no new ground has come to allow the present bail application. At this juncture learned A.G.A. also referred to the statement of the victim recorded during trial on oath and annexed with the bail application and further argued that a prima facie case is made out. Applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties, keeping in view the statement of the victim as well as other witnesses recorded during trial on oath, I do not find any ground to allow the Second Bail Application.
Thus, bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Sachdeva