Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27296 of 2016 Applicant :- Mukesh Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kshatresh Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.02/2016 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act police station Bankata, District Deoria with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.
Accused-applicant has been named in the FIR and a specific role has also been assigned to him.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the averments as contained in the present bail application and looking to the age of the victim and also looking to the presumption of Section 29 of the POCSO Act and also looking to the seriousness of the allegations as made in the FIR, gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible on day to day basis in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220.
It is made clear that in case, the witnesses are not appearing before the court concerned, liberty is being given to the concerned court to take necessary coercive measures in accordance with law for ensuring the presence of the witnesses.
Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Anand