Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56199 of 2019 Applicant :- Ram Ajor Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri U.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Abhishek Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Ram Ajor with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 117 of 2018, under Section - 377, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Sikariganj, District - Gorakhpur, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of unnatural sex on a three and half years child, punishable with imprisonment upto life;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 16.8.2018, the applicant is in confinement since 18.8.2018;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) charge-sheet has already been submitted, however, at present, not even a single witness of fact has been examined;
(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted, on one hand, the applicant has been falsely implicated and, on the other, his liberty has been curtailed indefinitely. Referring to the period of detention, it has been submitted, the applicant is entitled to bail at this stage.
4. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA, who would submit that the FIR allegation is specific to the applicant alone. Then, the injury report clearly suggests the occurrence of offence. Further, reference has been made to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to suggest that, at present, there is no inconsistency and doubt in the prosecution story.
5. In view of the above, keeping in mind the fact that the FIR allegation is specific and, at present, no discrepancy appears to exist, the present application is rejected.
6. However, liberty of the applicant cannot be allowed to be curtailed for indefinite period of time pending trial, which has not proceeded beyond filing of charge-sheet. Further, it is observed that the trial court shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today, subject to the applicant not seeking any adjournment on any count, especially at the stage of evidence being recorded. In case, the trial is not concluded within a period of nine months from today, the applicant shall be at liberty to file a fresh bail application along with a complete copy of the order-sheet of the trial court.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Prakhar