Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8215 of 2018 Applicant :- Javed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Tondon,Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,V.K. Jaiswal, M.A. Abbasi
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Deepak Rana, counsel for the applicant, Sri M.A. Abbasi, Sri V.K. Jaiswal, counsel for the informant and learned AGA.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 347 of 2017, u/s 363, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Simbhawali, District Hapur with the prayer for enlarging him on bail.
Learned counsel counsel for the applicant submits that beside the applicant six other accused were nominated in the F.I.R., however, chargesheet has only been submitted against the applicant; the F.I.R. in the present case has been registered on an application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. after an inordinate delay; he further submits that there are major contradictions between the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; he further pointed out that father of the victim had lodged F.I.R. vide Crime no. 177 of 2017 against the applicant and two others u/s 363 IPC, this F.I.R. was registered on 22.5.2017 and on the basis of statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. where she denied the allegation against the applicant and another co-accused final report was submitted. Thereafter, after fabricating a new version the applicant was implicated in the present case in which he is languishing in jail since 21.11.2017, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim as per high school record is about 15 years of age and she has fully supported the prosecution version of kidnapping and rape by the applicant in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. It is argued that merely because some of other accused have not been chargesheeted no benefit can be extended to the applicant and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and considering the age of the victim, I do not find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
However, as the applicant is in jail since 21.11.2017 the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within the period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the trial court.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Dhirendra/