Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32863 of 2020 Applicant :- Shivam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Sisodia,Vivek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Shivam, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 289 of 2020, under Sections 376, 511, IPC and 3/4/18 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Didoli, District Amroha.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the prosecutrix has not named the applicant in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The first informant who is the mother of the prosecutrix has although named the applicant in the First Information Report and also in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but the same is a false and concocted version. It is argued that the applicant is a neighbour of the first informant. The applicant is a student aged about 22 years and is a brilliant student, para 15 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court to buttress the said argument. It is argued that the implication of the applicant is with malafide intentions. There is no credible evidence against the applicant. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 13.07.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant. The prosecutrix is a girl aged about five years. She states of the incident being committed on her. The first informant saw the applicant coming down from the house when her daughter was also coming down crying. It is argued that the applicant is involved in the present case. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant. The applicant was seen coming down from the roof from where the prosecutrix was coming down crying who had told about the incident to her mother after which the First Information Report has been lodged. The prosecutrix is aged about five years and a child. There is no reason for false implication of the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)