Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3661 of 2018 Appellant :- Sadhu Giri @ Upendra Giri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Swati Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Mrs Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned counsel for the informant learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against judgement and order dated 14.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ghazipur passed in Bail Application No. 106 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 31 of 2018, under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C., Section 3(2)5 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 3/4 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Mardah, District Ghazipur, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged based on the version given by the prosecutrix to her father. There is allegation of outraging modesty of the victim by the appellant. The F.I.R. was registered under Section 354 I.P.C. However, when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after a month and five days of the incident, the prosecutrix introduced version of alleged rape on her by the appellant. Therefore, in view of inconsistent version of the prosecution, the appellant, who is in jail since 30.5.2018, deserves to be released on bail.
Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail prayer and submitted that the victim was medically examined after two days of the incident in which she has unequivocally stated about commission of rape before the doctor and besides external injury on her upper arm, her hymen was found ruptured and there was slight laceration at 3' O clock position. As per, school certificate the victim is aged about 15 years. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation against appellant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail.
In the result, appeal is dismissed. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of aforesaid case and conclude the same in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 27.8.2018 MN/-