Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50777 of 2017 Applicant :- Pramod @ Bhonda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,Mata Pher Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Pramod @ Bhonda in connection with Case Crime No. 545 of 2017, under Sections 376,511,307,323,354-B IPC, P.S.
Mawana, District Meerut.
Heard Sri Utkarsh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA alongwith Sri Ashutosh Srivastava 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 applicant is not mentioned in the FIR or in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is a mention by reference to the fact that the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the prosecutrix to the police which renders the identity of the applicant extremely doubtful. It is submitted that the applicant has been implicated falsely at the instance of the complainant's family, who are natives of the same village and not on good terms. It is urged that the complainant, that is to say, the brother of the complainant took a sum of Rs. one lac from the applicant in the month of September, 2016 to recoup his business on condition that the same would be refunded within the course of a year but the promise was not kept. This led to a dispute between parties regarding which a Panchayat was convened in the month of August, 2017. It is said that in the Panchayat, there was a sharp exchange of words between the complainant and the applicant on 06.09.2017 where the complainant warned the applicant of dire consequences. Shortly, thereafter on 08.09.2017 simmering with misplaced vengeance, the present FIR was lodged involving an offence against his sister.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the version in the FIR, the statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is consistent. The prosecutrix had recognized the assailant but could not place his name which she did during investigation and revealed it to the police before her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It is, in particular, pointed out that at the pointing of the applicant from the place of occurrence the clothes and the plastic rope, that are part of the ravishing assault by the applicant, were recovered by the police These were identified by the prosecutrix. Further, attention of the Court has been invited by the learned A.G.A. to the injury report dated 8.9.2017 whereas as many as eight injuries have been sustained by the prosecutrix, that includes a red numetic swelling 2 x 2 cm on part of left side of forehead in relation to which there is an x-ray advised. There are a number of red contusions on the neck, and, multiple red contusions on the back, abdomen and middle of back. He submits that the kind of injuries sustained by the applicant, cannot be self inflicted, and, are consistent with the manner and nature of assault by the applicant consistently indicated in the account of the prosecutrix.
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 injuries sustained by the prosecutrix and the recovery of incriminating evidence comprising clothes of the prosecutrix and the plastic rope used in the assault, 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 :- 27.11.2018 BKM/-