Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34969 of 2020 Applicant :- Rauf Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy,Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Wasim
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui learned counsel holding brief of, learned counsel for the applicant; Mohd. Wasim, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Prakash Tripathi, 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 - Rauf with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 0792 of 2019, under Sections - 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Kairana, District - Shamli, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) against FIR lodged on 21.12.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 01.2.2020.
(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest.
(iii) the applicant has no criminal history.
(iv) chargesheet has already been submitted yet trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.
(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated by his step brother owing to certain money disputes between them as has also been clarified by the mother of the first informant in her application submitted to the learned court below dated 27.5.2020; thus it has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A. would submit that at present the FIR allegations are specific against the applicant; they are not contradicted by the injury report and that the victim girl (minor) had supported the FIR allegations in her statement recorded during investigation. At the trial, at present evidence of P.W.-1 is being received and thus, no interference is warranted at this stage.
5. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, in the context of sexual offence alleged against a minor girl by the applicant who would be a person held in trust and keeping in mind the statements recorded during investigation, no case is made out for grant of bail. The application is rejected.
6. However, it is expected that the trial court shall proceed with the trial with utmost expedition and endeavour to conclude the same most expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either the parties and preferably within a period of nine months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Faraz