Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27772 of 2018 Applicant :- Nilesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Yadav,Ashutosh Upadhyay,Bharat Singh Pal,Chandravir Singh Raghuvanshi,Indrajeet Chaurasia,Premnendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application, moved by the accused- applicant- Nilesh Kumar, in Case Crime No. 454 of 2017, under Sections-363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station-Madiyahun, District-Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for accused-applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 14.06.2017; he is of no criminal antecedents; there is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case, he is released on bail; hence bail has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that First Information Report was got lodged on 12.06.2017 at 16.30 p.m. for an occurrence of 21.00 p.m. of 10.06.2017 by Rajendra Prasad, at Police Station-Madiyahun, District- Jaunpur, against unknown with this contention that prosecutrix being 15 years of age was enticed and taken by some unknown and she was under search, when telephonic calls at different times, in that night, were received, but who made that calls could not be disclosed; the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveals that telephonic call being received on cell phone was instantly detected to be by Nilesh Kumar-present applicant, who extended threat of dire consequences, hence name of applicant was instantly there; prosecutrix in her statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has said to be under affairs with Nilesh Kumar-
applicant and she was under telephonic call with him, who persuaded and extended threat for being married with him, hence she eloped on 10.06.2017 with the applicant; physical relation was also established; the same is version of the prosecutrix, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereas, in medical age determination prosecutrix has been held to be 14-15 years of age, apparently prosecutrix is minor and she was enticed and taken by the applicant; she was raped by him.
Looking to the heinousness of offence of rape with a tiny girl, aim and object of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 to protect children from sexual offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on bail as well as likelihood of fleeing from course of justice, there appears to be no ground for bail.
Accordingly, this Bail Application stands rejected.
However, applicant is in jail since 14.06.2017 and more than four years incarceration is there, hence, trial Court is being directed to conclude the trial at an expedient, in accordance with strict adherence of Section 309 of Cr.P.C., without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either side.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Deepak/