Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4545 of 2018 Applicant :- Shankar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arjun Singh Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.N. Tiwari (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application. First bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person alleging that on 27.3.2017 the daughter of the complainant, aged about 14 years, was missing. Later on, she was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in which she stated that she likes the applicant (Shankar) and they know each other from one year. Shankar called her and she went with him to Delhi and stayed four days there and at that time the applicant raped her. When she cried, one lady came to Shankar and Shankar scolded her and told her to leave the place. The applicant made sexual relation with her without her consent. According to medical report, the age of the prosecutrix was found 15 years and hymen was found absent.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and is languishing in jail since 3.4.2017 (two years and three months) having no criminal history. There is no possibility to get this case decided in near future due to heavy load wok in the trial court. No injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix. She went with the applicant on her will and consent. There is no independent witness/eye witness account against the applicant. In case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant has raped minor girl, who was 15 years of age without her will and consent. The case of the prosecution is medically supported. Therefore, his bail application is liable to be rejected.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, gravity of offence, without entering into the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected at this stage in Case Crime No. 198 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 476 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri.
It is expected from the trial court to decide the case of the applicant expeditiously according to Section 309 Cr.P.C. on day to day basis, if there is no legal impediment.
D.M. & S.P./S.S.P,- Mainpuri are directed to ensure the presence of the witnesses summoned before the court below. The learned District Judge, Mainpuri is also directed to monitor the case on monthly basis in the Monitoring Cell.
The court concerned is also directed to send a detailed report after every three months showing the reason therein why the case is not being decided, which shall be kept on record.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned within three days for compliance.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 OP