Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16973 of 2019 Applicant :- Shani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Om Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Shani with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Sessions Trial No. 861 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 215 of 2016, under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- C.B. Ganj, District-Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the medical examination report, the victim is 19 years old and she is actually a fully grown up major girl. As per the allegations made in the first information report, on 12th June, 2016 at 12:30 p.m. (noon) the victim, namely, Sonam was enticed away by Mohd. Ashlam and Shani. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that sister of Aslam, namely, Rajada came to her house and persuaded her to go along with her to see her father as he was ill. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has made allegation of sexual assault being committed upon her by the co- accused Mohd. Aslam only, whereas in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has made allegation of sexual assault being committed upon her by four persons including the present applicant also. There are contradictions in the version of the first information report and both the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The real fact is that the victim is consenting with the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 21st July, 2016.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has further contended that since the trial of the case is at an advance stage and on date two prosecution witnesses of facts, namely, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have been examined, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the court below to conclude the trial itself instead of deciding the present bail application of the applicant on merit.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment. If possible, the trial court shall proceed with the matter on day to day basis.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 3.6.2019 Sushil/-