Court No. - 58
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37020 of 2017 Applicant :- Parshuram Bind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhriguram Ji,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Nath Tripathi And Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24192 of 2015 Applicant :- Shubhit Jain @ Sumit Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghavendra Dwivedi,Arun Kumar Pandey, Dhiraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ashok Nath Tripathi,Raj Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
Leaned counsel for the applicants made submission that applicants have been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 176 of 2014, under Sections 376-D, 419, 420, 506 I.P.C. & 3 /4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Manda, District-Allahabad. It is next contended that complainant/victim Karishma Yadav resides with her maternal grand mother (Nani) at House No. 828, Malviya Nagar, District-Allahabad. It is next contended that Investigating Officer did not verify the address of complainant and her Nani. It is next contended that medical examination of the prosecutrix conducted on 11.08.2014 and no any symptom of rape is found on her body and as per medical report doctor advised that no opinion regarding rape can be given. It is further contended that applicant Subhit Jain @ Sumit Jain was not named in the F.I.R. and his name was disclosed by the prosecutrix in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but the source of disclosure is not mentioned therein. It is further submitted that several dates have been given for the prosecution evidence before the trial court but till now the statement of the prosecutrix could not be recorded. It is further contended that applicants Parshuram Bind and Subhit Jain @ Sumit Jain are in jail since 25.09.2016 and 18.12.2014 respectively. Hence, prayer for bail is made out.
Per contra learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant rebutted the above arguments stating that prosecutrix enticed and duped by the accused-applicants to get her service and she was brutally raped by the accused under the threat. She has specifically and categorically stated the whole incident in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is next contended that at the time of commission of the offence the prosecutrix was only 15 years old and she was raped by the accused under threat, so no ground for enlarging the accused-applicants is made out.
Having considered the submissions raised by the counsel for the applicants-accused and the objections raised by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant, gravity and severity of the offence and conduct of the applicant-accused, I am of the view that prima facie at this stage grounds are not sufficient to enlarge the applicants-accused on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail is refused.
However, learned A.G.A. brought this fact to the notice of the Court that trial is under progress.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the court below is directed to expedite the trial and all endeavours be made to conclude the trial expeditiously if possible within two months after receipt of the certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Trial Court is further directed to procure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses specifically prosecutrix to get her examined before the trial court keeping the procedure laiddown under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018/AKT