Criminal Misc. Bail Application rejected. Court held it not a fit case for bail due to gravity of offence and consistent prosecution case. Directed trial conclusion within six months citing Vinod Kumar to balance detention with expedited justice.
Bail application rejected; trial concluded within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40008 of 2018
Applicant :- Vishal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar,Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of State is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, appearing on behalf of State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant-Vishal in Case Crime No.506 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376, 323 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kankarkheda, District Bareilly.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, wherein the FIR has been lodged with a delay of 15 days without any explanation. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is a major and aged about 19 years going by her high school certificate. The applicant and the prosecutrix had an affair since, the year 2016, that did not have the blessings of the family of the prosecutrix. The applicant and the prosecutrix had decided to elope and the said fact came to her mother's knowledge, whereupon, the present bogus FIR was lodged, charging the applicant of rape. The prosecutrix was forced to give a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but according to the learned counsel for the applicant the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is indicative of the relationship and is exculpatory. It is also submitted that the applicant is a respectable man who is in jail since 17.5.2018.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and invited the attention of the Court to the fact that the FIR, clearly shows that the prosecutrix was ravished by the applicant by force at knife point that lead her to suffer a fracture to her right leg. He has further, drawn the attention of the Court to the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that supports the prosecution as also the statement made to the doctor during her medical examination, where she has clearly, given out circumstances which show that she was ravished. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which also shows that the applicant, shot her video clip and under the threat of publishing them, has been extorting money from her. The medico legal report also indicates an opinion that
signs of physical abuse are present.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, in particular, the consistent case of the prosecution from the contents of FIR, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C. as also the medico legal report, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage. The bail application stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the trial pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court shall initiate necessary coercive measures to ensure their presence positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 2.11.2018 Neeraj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to the applicant charged with offences under Sections 452, 376, 323 and 506 IPC considering the nature of the offence.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix indicate a false implication.
Whether the trial should be concluded expeditiously to facilitate the release of the applicant after a certain period of detention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabRelied on¶12
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Vishal
State Of U.P.
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
J.J. Munir
Parties & counsel
