Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33117 of 2021 Applicant :- Jahir Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Rafeek Ahmad Khan
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Satish Pandey, learned State counsel and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Jahir Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 90 of 2021, under Sections 376 I.P.C., Section 4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, registered at P.S. Sri Nagar, District Mahoba.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued the F.I.R. although names the applicant as an accused which has been lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix, but the allegations levelled therein are false and concocted. It is argued that no such incident has taken place and the implication of the applicant in the present case is with malafide intentions. It is argued that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. initially did not state of any rape being committed upon her but later on in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that the applicant raped her. It is further argued that Preetam who is stated to be an eye witness of the incident in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not state of any rape being committed on her. He states that while he was returning after defecating, he heard noise of a girl which was coming from the bush and when he reached there, he saw the applicant and the prosecutrix together. He then exhorted after which the applicant ran away. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para- 14 of the affidavit and is in jail since 13.6.2021.
Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the prosecutrix as per the F.I.R. is stated to be of about 17 years and as per the certificate of C.M.O., Mahoba, she has been opined to be of about 16 years in age and as such, she is a minor girl. It is argued that the medical examination report of the prosecutrix corroborates with the story of rape as the doctor after examining her private parts has given opinion that there is a sign of an offence but vaginal penetration cannot be ruled out. It is argued that even as per the school records the date of birth of the prosecutrix is stated to be 5.9.2009 and as such she was aged about 12 years at the time of incident and was a minor. It is argued that the prosecutrix is a minor and there is allegation of rape against the applicant. It is prayed that the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the prosecutrix is a minor. There is allegation of rape against the applicant in the F.I.R., in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix. The medical examination corroborates with the prosecution case.
Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant argued that since the trial has started and the statement of P.W. 2 has been recorded, a direction for expeditious disposal of trial be issued.
Looking to the fact that statement of P.W.- 2 has been recorded, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others : (2002) 1 SCC 655, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab : (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and another Vs. Union of India : (2017) 5 SCC 702, subject to any legal impediment.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Naresh