Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18734 of 2021 Applicant :- Kala @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Kala @ Sonu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 229 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the relative of the first informant which has been concealed by him in the First Information Report and even in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the relationship of the applicant with the first informant and the prosecutrix was subsequently disclosed by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has argued although the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and the medical examination was done but therein the doctor did not find any injury on her body externally or internally. It is argued that no medical examination was done of the prosecutrix to ascertain her age.
It is further argued that although the prosecution relies on the school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix which bears the signature of the Principal of the College but the same is not a genuine document as it does not bear the signature of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. It is argued that the allegations in the First Information Report, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix are false and concocted just in order to falsely implicate the applicant.
It is further argued that there is an enmity of the applicant which is that the sister of the applicant was married with the brother of the victim and after the said marriage the first informant had pressurized the father of the applicant to marry his daughter/victim with the applicant, the same was refused and thus the First Information Report has been lodged. Para 17 has been placed before the Court to buttress the said argument. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 17.07.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there is an allegation of his enticing away the minor daughter of the first informant. Subsequently, the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she states that she was raped by the applicant several times. It is argued that as per the school leaving certificate, her date of birth is 06.08.2003 and as such she was aged about 16 years at the time of incident. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the First Information Report, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix who has alleged that he raped her several times. The prosecutrix as per the school leaving certificate was aged about 16 years at the time of incident and as such she was minor. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)