Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2896 of 2019 Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Vishwakarma,Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Mukesh in connection with Case Crime No. 203 of 2018, under Section 323,376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Machhli Sahar, District Jaunpur.
Heard Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The FIR was registered under Sections 354, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act but on the basis of the statements of the prosecutrix subsequently recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., offences under Section 323, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act have been substituted, in place of those initially charged. It is argued that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, as the incident is said to have taken place on 11.08.2018 at 12.00 mid night but the FIR was lodged on 18.8.2018, that is, after seven days of the occurrence. It is pointed out that there is a contradiction between the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., all of which creates a doubt about the prosecution story.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and points out that the applicant was stalking the prosecutrix for the past three years. He called her on 11.08.2018 at 12.00 midnight and wanted to do something offensive which the prosecutrix refused. In consequence, he beat up the prosecutrix, came back home and when the matter was complained to the applicants family they said they would look into it. It is said that on account of the applicant's conduct, the prosecutrix had tried to end her life on four occasions in the past by immolating herself. In the statement of the prosecutrix it is said that she was returning home after attending the call of nature when the applicant waylaid her and ravished her. Her mother came out to look for her, whereupon the applicant ran away. She disclosed to her mother the fact that she had been ravished. In the statement before the Magistrate recorded under Section 164 CrPC which is a solemn account of the occurrence, it has been stated that on 11.08.2018 at 12.00 in the mid night the prosecutrix was called by Mukesh (the applicant) behind a certain tree, where he ravished her and beat her up, and she came back home crying, whereupon the police were called.
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case in particular, the fact that the applicant had been stalking the prosecutrix for the past three years and ultimately ravished her, the fact that the prosecutrix is a young girl of 17 years, the fact that the brazen act of the applicant to ravish the prosecutrix after a long period of effort, makes him a menace to the society, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail The bail application, accordingly, stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that trial pending before the concerned court be concluded expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. 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 shall initiate necessary coercive measures for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 BKM/-