Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45634 of 2018 Applicant :- Naresh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of applicant Naresh Yadav, who is in jail since 19.04.2018 in connection with Case Crime No. 534 of 2018 under Sections 323, 376, 506 IPC, P.S. Phase-III Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Heard Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajnee Kant Pandey, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, 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. It is argued that the prosecutrix who is undoubtedly a major aged about 22 years. It is also pointed out that the prosecutrix refused internal medical examination. The medico legal evidence does not show any evidence about rape. It is particularly emphasized by the learned counsel for the applicant that admittedly the prosecutrix and the applicant along with their friends were out to celebrate a New Year party, and, there, there was a sharp exchange of words between the applicant and the prosecutrix on account of which she has falsely implicated him. It is submitted that the applicant hails from a respectable family, and, the prosecutrix has charged him in order to blackmail him on a malicious charge. It is also urged that the applicant has no criminal history, and, is in jail since 19.04.2018.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail and submit that the prosecution case is consistent in the FIR and in the statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. on material particulars. It is further pointed out that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. gives a graphic account of the occurrence. It is in addition pointed out that the applicant had captured a video of the prosecutrix and was bringing pressure on her to withdraw from the prosecution of the case on pain of the video being published. It is submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR is on account of the fact that the prosecutrix being a young and unmarried girl was reticent but the applicant and his family were exerting pressure upon her to seek some such documentation that would prevent her from reporting the matter to the police and were harassing her.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is consistent in her account of the occurrence as disclosed in the FIR, in the statement under Section 161 and in her 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 at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected at this stage.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible 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 measure for ensuring 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 :- 29.11.2018 Deepak