Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5788 of 2018 Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Dushyant Singh,Mahesh Chand,Mohit Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dushyant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on the record.
Applicant-Sunil seeks bail in Case Crime No.245 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 342,, 376D I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj (Kashi Ram Nagar).
It has been argued by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant being relative of applicant and Neetu is resident of a different place i.e. Aligarh. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of suspicion. The prosecution version of alleged gang- rape by the applicant and two others as stated by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C. is not supported by the medical evidence. The F.I.R. was lodged quite belatedly on 7.4.2017 at 9.30 p.m of the incident which is said to have taken place on 5.4.2017 at 7.00 p.m. Therefore, the applicant, who is in jail since 26.05.2017, may be enlarged on bail during trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for the bail and submitted that there is consistent version of rape by the applicant and two others made before the doctor at the time of medical examination and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Besides it, it is stated that age of the prosecutrix is about 16 years, as such the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case,I do not find any ground to consider the prayer for bail of the applicant. The prayer for bail is declined at this stage.
The application for bail is, hereby, rejected without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 MN/-