Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9124 of 2021 Applicant :- Kallu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Javed Khan,Mohammad Javed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in Case Crime No.931 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376-D, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Dildar Nagar, District Ghazipur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The first bail application of applicants was rejected vide order dated 29.01.2020 and after that statement of p.w.-1 Pooja and p.w.-2 Smt. Gudiya have been recorded, wherein, they have not supported the prosecution version and both have been declared hostile. It has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.10.2017 having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the case relates to gang rape and that first bail application of applicants has been rejected on merits.
Perusal of record shows that first bail application of applicants was rejected vide order dated 29.01.2020, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14992 of 2019 and by that order, the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and to decide the case within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order but it has not been clarified that whether the copy of aforesaid order has been filed before the trial court or not and, if filed, on which date it was filed before the trial court. Learned counsel for the applicant could not clarify that on which date, the said order was filed before the trial court. The evidence has been recorded before the trial court is yet to be appreciated by the trial court. It may also be observed here that during last one year the courts have not been functioning properly for sufficiently long time due to Covid-19 pandemic.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the second bail application of applicants Kallu and Pintu are hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Neeraj