Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 370 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Rai @ Sanjeev Maharaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suman Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Mishra,Krishna Kant Tiwari
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Ms. Suman Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant to enlarge him on bail in case crime no. 58 of 2020, under Sections 376, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jhunsi, district Prayagraj.
Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has not committed the present offence. It is further argued that offence is said have been committed on 05.02.2020 whereas FIR was lodged on 06.02.2020. Informant is the mother of the victim. In the FIR, age of the victim is shown as aged about 15 years and in the medical evidence age of the victim was found 17 to 18 years. Referring to the FIR it was argued that FIR was lodged belatedly. Incident took place in the Kumbh Mela area. There is police station in the area itself. FIR of such type of offence should have been lodged on the same day. It was further argued that medical evidence does not support the oral version and further argued that no injury was found on the private part of the victim. It was next argued that present FIR was lodged on the basis of false facts only when the applicant requested the informant to shift her flower shop from the front side of the camp of the applicant. At this juncture learned counsel for the applicant referred to entire documents and further argued that no prima facie case is made out. FIR was lodged on the basis of improbable and unbelievable story. Applicant is in jail since 08.02.2020.
Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant. Victim has supported the prosecution case in the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. She was minor at the time of incident. One day delay in lodging FIR in rape cases will not be material to disbelieve the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Thus, a prima facie case is made.
In this matter, as is evident from the record victim has supported the prosecution case under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., medical evidence does not belie prosecution version, thus, having considered the rival submissions, going through the entire record and also taking into consideration the contents of the FIR as well as statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the court is of the opinion that applicant has not made out a case for bail.
Bail Application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Sachdeva