Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10018 of 2019 Applicant :- Rakesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari,Pushpendra Singh,Sushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant and counter affidavit filed on behalf of State. The same are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Rakesh, who is involved in Case Crime No.485 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 328 I.P.C. and Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Deorania, District Bareilly.
As per F.I.R. version daughter of informant namely Madhubala aged about 15 years had gone to the house of co-accused Dharamveer for some function. It is further alleged that on same day at 9:00 p.m. accused persons called victim on pretext of water, when she came with water, accused persons kept cloth on her face, gave Bhang Pakodi to the victim by which she became unconscious and thereafter applicant and other co- accused persons committed rape upon her. When she gained consciousness in the morning found that her shirt was put off and pant was open, she did not told about the incident to her family members on account of fear. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed the statements of P.W.1 victim and P.W.3 informant Smt. Rupdei, which is annexed as Annexures-S.A.1 & S.A.2 to the supplementary affidavit, in which they have not supported the prosecution version. He further submits that the report has been lodged after delay of 9 days. According to medical report no injury has been found on the person of the victim. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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. It is next contended that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 16.09.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that in her statement victim has stated that on account of compromise, she has stated before the court regarding the incident while in the statement recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., she has supported the prosecution version. As per medical report at the time of alleged incident, the age of the victim was 18 years old as well as unmarried lady, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, statement of the victim that on account of compromise she has stated before the court and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, I do not find a fit case of bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Rakesh is hereby refused and the bail application is rejected.
However, trial court is directed to expedite this case in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Jitendra