Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47132 of 2018 Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Hira Lal Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of applicant Naveen Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 359 of 2018 under Sections 376-A, 376-B, 511 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S.
Echotek-3, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR has been lodged with a delay of four days about which there is no good explanation. It is further submitted that ingredients of offence punishable under Section 376 and 376B IPC are not made out as also of Section 7 of the POCSO Act. It is further submitted that the prosecution is motivated inasmuch as the tuition fee of the informant's child had fallen in arrears to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, which the applicant demanded. The applicant is a tutor. It is further pointed out that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded after a delay of 24 days. It is also submitted that the wife of the applicant was present throughout the day, including the day of occurrence, that was also the date of his arrest, lateron in connection with present crime.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that on 28.08.2018 at 02:50 p.m., the applicant had taken the prosecutrix, a girl of 12 years to give her tuition in her studies. Instead, he attempted to ravish her that led the child to raise alarm. In the statement to the doctor recorded in confidence, the child has supported the prosecution case as also in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she has graphically described the occurrence, involving a determined attempt to ravish her by her teacher(tutor), who is the applicant.
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 a young child of 12 years, the fact that the applicant stands in a relationship of great trust to the child being her tutor that he has violated by attempting to ravish her, the fact that the stand of the prosecutrix is consistent in her statement under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and that made to the doctor, 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, preferably, within four 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