Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2152 of 2018 Applicant :- Vipin Opposite Party :- Sate Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Vijai Singh,Gaurav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant's counsel is taken on record.
This second bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.256 of 2015, under Section 376-D I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Rohata, District-Meerut. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 3.3.2017 on merits.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned A. G. A.
Submission raised by counsel for the applicant is that after rejection of the bail, the trial has not made any progress and according to counsel the charges also have not been framed. Therefore, the accused should be released on bail on that ground. It has also been pointed out by applicants' counsel that co-accused Sachin has been released on bail by another Court, subsequent to the rejection of applicant's bail and on that basis also the accused-applicant deserves bail.
Perusal of the order passed with regard to co-accused Sachin makes it very clear that the case of co-accused Sachin is quite distinguishable from that of the present applicant about whom the allegations have been consistent and the alleged contradictions which were pointed out with regard to co- accused Sachin do not hold good with regard to applicant Vipin and, therefore, there is no parity between the two. So far as the delay in trial is concerned, in a matter of this gravity where a minor girl has been raped, who is the cousin sister of the applicant, the period of detention of the applicant cannot be said to be so long so long drawn out which may constitute a good basis to release the applicant on bail on that basis alone. The merits of the case have been gone into by the Court while hearing his bail earlier. The merits of the case were considered and there is no such fresh grounds which may persuade this Court to enlarge the applicant on bail.
In the aforesaid background, looking to the gravity of offence and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the second bail application stands rejected.
In the last it has been made to appear that the charges have not been framed, the Court is required to look into the matter and proceed expeditiously with the trial after framing the charge without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either side.
In absence of complete facts, this Court is not in a position to know about the exact reason for not framing the charge, but if there is no legal impediment or no stay order passed by the High Court, it is difficult to appreciate and comprehend the situation as to why the charges have not been framed so far. The trial Court is directed to take adequate steps to proceed in accordance with law to proceed in the matter expeditiously.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018
Manish Himwan