This Second Bail Application has been moved on behalf of applicant Satyendra who is involved in S.T. No.549 of 2013, Case Crime No.697 of 2013, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pihani, District Hardoi. The first bail application was rejected on merit by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2014.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version. At the time of medical examination no marks of injury has been found on the person of victim. The statement of victim has been recorded as PW-1. In her cross-examination it has come that a private counsel was also engaged on behalf of informant. The victim in her cross-examination has admitted that private counsel has told her to give statement as he taught her. The cross-examination of victim shows that the false story has been concocted by the father of the victim. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. False allegation has been made against him. There is no other evidence against the applicant. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 16.06.2013.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in medical report the age of the victim has been shown around 18 years. In her statement recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., she has supported the prosecution version and has stated that the applicant has committed rape upon her. The statement of victim recorded as PW-1 in which she has also supported the prosecution version and has stated that the applicant has committed rape upon her. The first bail application of applicant has been rejected on merit. There is no new ground in this bail application. In this case the statement of three witnesses have been recorded. The applicant has committed rape upon an unmarried girl, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Satyendra is hereby refused and the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order, if there if no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 25.1.2016 Jitendra