Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15860 of 2018 Applicant :- Manik Chand Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.445 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Jareef Nagar, District- Badaun with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The second bail application has been addressed on the following two grounds. Learned counsel has firstly referred to the statement of the prosecutrix as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to contend that there is an evident inconsistency. The Court however finds itself unable to countenance the submission since the original order rejecting bail had taken into account the statement of the prosecutrix as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel then refers to an order passed on a habeas corpus petition to which the prosecutrix was stated to be a party petitioner and submits that as per the averments made in that petition, she was living with one Jogendra Singh. The Court however notes the categorical finding as recorded in the earlier order passed by the Court in which it has been clearly found that as per medical assessment, the age of the prosecutrix was thirteen years. The question of consent consequently does not arise. Accordingly while the Court finds no new ground which may merit the grant of second bail, it also bears in mind that although a chargesheet is stated to have been submitted and charges framed on 19 July 2018, according to the learned counsel, till date no prosecution witnesses has been examined. The Court also bears in mind that the applicant has been incarcerated since 09 October 2016.
Accordingly this application shall stand disposed of with the observation that the concerned Sessions Judge shall endeavour to conclude the trial with expedition and preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order bearing in mind the provisions made in Section 309 Cr.P.C.
For the purposes of facilitating the concerned Court adhering to the time frame stipulated, the concerned Jail Superintendent is also hereby directed to ensure that the accused and all witnesses are duly produced on the dates fixed except in exceptional situations as statutorily envisaged in the Prisoners (Attendance In Courts) Act, 1955 and Sections 267-270 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In case of exceptional circumstances such as illness and infirmity it is not possible to produce the accused or the witnesses, the Jail Superintendent shall depute a responsible officer who shall affirm an Affidavit before the Court concerned disclosing therein the reasons for non-production.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Vivek Kr.