Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8846 of 2019 Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Shoaib Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Raju with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 574 of 2018, under Sections 354, 376 I.P.C., and Section 5/6 and 9/10 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali City, District- Bijnor.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the brother of the prosecutrix. As per version of the F.I.R., the prosecutrix, who is mentally and physically retarded was taken away by the applicant to the vacant plot, where he was trying to commit the offence of sexually assaulting the prosecutrix, and, the incident was seen by the sister of the prosecutrix. In the statement of the eye- witness, who is sister of the prosecutrix, on whose narration, the F.I.R. has been lodged, has supported the prosecution version of the F.I.R. In the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has explained by her gesture as to what has happened and has indicated the commission of offence by the applicant upon the prosecutrix. As per the medical examination report, the prosecutrix is aged about 16 years. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 04.07.2018.
Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the prosecutrix, who is mentally and physically challenged, states by her gesture that a heinous crime has been committed by the applicant and he is not entitled for bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant, after perusing the averments made in the present bail application as well as rejection order and the laid down in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Bandu @ Daulat (2018) 11 SCC 163, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected.
However, the trial Judge is directed to consider and conclude the trial of the aforesaid case crime, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 JK Yadav