Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2608 of 2019 Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of applicant Manoj in connection with Case Crime No. 555 of 2017 under Sections 363, 376/511 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Ijjat Nagar, District Bareilly.
Heard Sri Atul Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the first information report lodged by the father of the prosecutrix alleging an offence of attempted rape by the applicant of his minor daughter, aged about seven years on 18.07.2017 at about 08:00 in the morning hours. It is alleged that the applicant caught hold of the child and dragged her to a field but on account of alarm raised by the child, certain natives reached the place of occurrence averting the crime. The allegations in the FIR have been categorically supported by the prosecutrix, who is a young child of seven years in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of attempt to ravish a young child of seven years, and there is a consistent account for the prosecution across various statement recorded during investigation including the one before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C..
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is a young child of seven years, the fact that prosecution account is consistent across various statement recorded during investigation prima facie including the statement 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.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within six months next from the 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. 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 is directed to initiate strict coercive measures to ensure their presence. Once, the witnesses appear, they will not be discharged until their evidence is recorded.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 Deepak