Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41180 of 2018 Applicant :- Saurabh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of applicant Saurabh Singh in connection with Case Crime No. 309 of 2018 under Sections 366, 376D, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Sindholi, District Shahjahanpur.
Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Khare, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that co-accused Vivek Singh was into a relationship with the prosecutix over the past 4 to 5 years, that later did not work out with the applicant declining, in consequence of which the prosecutrix annoyed over the disinclination of co-accused Vivek Singh, falsely implicated him. It is argued that in order to give more teeth to the prosecution and make it into a case of gang rape, the applicant has been roped in without any basis.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant has been nominated by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and that under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He submits that the specific allegation in the case is one of gang rape. The FIR also nominates the applicant.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the consistent nomination of the applicant in the FIR, in the statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected at this stage.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within six months next from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate strict coercive measure for ensuring their presence. Once, the witnesses appear, they will not be discharged until their evidence is recorded.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Deepak