Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4982 of 2018 Applicant :- Panjabi @ Ram Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Panjabi @ Ram Kumar, who is in jail since 13.10.2017 in connection with Case Crime No. 342 of 2017, under Sections 376-D and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA alongwith Sri Abhinav Tripathi appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated. It is argued that the medico legal examination report does not disclose any external injury, and, in the supplementary report, the doctor has opined that 'in microscopic examination of vaginal smear slides no spermatozoa seen'. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that there is a political rivalry between the father-in-law of the prosecutrix and the applicant, on account of the fact that the applicant is the village Pradhan. It is also submitted that the applicant was not there at all in the fields at the time of incident. It is emphasized that according to the prosecution case, she came over on a phone call from co-accused Vijay but the applicant has been falsely charged due to the office that he holds.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and points out that the applicant alongwith co-accused, Vijay has been consistently nominated by the prosecutrix with a mention of his name and role in the FIR, of ravishing her, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in the statement made to the doctor on 08.10.2017 and her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where the story is consistent in every detail. In the medical report also it has been mentioned that sexual assault cannot be ruled out.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the consistent version in the FIR, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the statement made to the doctor and that 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.
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 :- 26.10.2018 BKM/-, NSC