Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1509 of 2018 Appellant :- Jaswant Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rudra Kant Mishra
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Piyush Tripathi, counsel for the appellant, Sri Rudra Kant Mishra, counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned AGA.
The present appeal has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 3.1.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 1, Sonbhadra in Bail Application no. 1020/2017 (Jaswant Chauhan vs. State) in Case Crime no. 0638 of 2017, u/s 376, 354 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the first informant for extraneous consideration. Infact no such incident as alleged in the F.I.R. has taken place, there are major contradictions in the statement of both the victims u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecution version of rape is not supported by any medical evidence, thus, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra learned AGA and counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that one of the victim who was raped by the applicant is aged about 14 years and the prosecution version of rape is supported by her in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and also finds support from her medical report.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal the medical report of one of the victim Archna, I find that the version of prosecutrix that the appellant had raped her is supported by medical evidence, I do not find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. Consequently the appeal also stands dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Dhirendra/