Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34474 of 2018 Applicant :- Jawahir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Ajit Pratap Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri A.B Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Mayank Awasthi, appearing on behalf of State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant- Jawahir in Case Crime No.25 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC, P.S. Navgarh, District Chandauli.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR has been lodged belatedly, 19 days after the occurrence, after pre-meditation and conspiracy amongst natives of the village, as also the family members. It is argued that the prosecutrix who is aged 36 years was medically examined by the doctor on 3.06.2018, 12 days after the incident wherein the doctor has reported no visible injury, either to any external part of the body, or to any internal part. It is emphasized that the medical report dated 3.06.2018 shows that a vaginal smear was not taken because of the lapse of period of time since the incident. It is argued that this falsifies the prosecution case. It is argued that the applicant has not committed any offence and the prosecutrix in collusion with her mother-in-law, has falsely implicated, the applicant. It is also argued that the statement of the prosecutrix's son which has been recorded, also does not support the prosecution case. It is argued that the prosecution case is also unbelievable as the occurrence is said to have taken place at the house of the prosecutrix, where all the family members were present. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 3.06.2018.
Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Mayank Awasthi, appearing on behalf of State learned AGA have opposed the plea for bail and submitted that there is a categorical and consistent allegation in the FIR and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, which shows that the applicant, banking on the blind faith of the prosecutrix in occult practices, which the applicant professes to practice, confined the prosecutrix to a room and ravished her. It is argued that on account of the weight attached to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., at this stage there is nothing to disbelieve the same.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence appearing in the case in particular the consistent stand of the prosecutrix in the FIR and the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage. The bail application stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the trial pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court shall initiate necessary coercive measures to ensure their presence positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 Neeraj