Fourth bail application by an applicant in a rape case, who has been incarcerated for three years. The bench rejected the application, holding that prolonged detention does not entitle the applicant to bail given the gravity of the offence and previous rejections.
The fourth bail application was rejected.
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. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6709 of 2018
Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Mishra,Ravish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
This is fourth bail application on behalf of the applicant.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It is submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail for the last three years and seeing his incarceration in the jail, he may be allowed bail. It is also submission of the learned counsel that the coaccused Vikram has already been released on bail by coordinate bench of this Court. It is further submission of the learned counsel that prosecutrix in her statement as PW-3 before the trial court has stated that she has not been enticed away by the accused persons. Whereas learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that three bail applications have already been dismissed of the applicant and point regarding the bail of coaccused Vikram has already been discussed by this Court in second bail application and same was also dismissed and period of detention was also considered in the third bail application.
The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bachchoo Lal vide order dated 25.8.2015 in Bail Application No. 30363 of 2015, after considering all the evidence against the applicant and second bail application of the applicant was dismissed on 20.5.2016 by this Court and
point of parity of bail of coaccused Vikram was discussed and same was refused. Accordingly, same is not liable to be considered again.
Point of detention in jail was considered in the third bail application, which was dismissed on 12.5.2017 and this Court is still of the view that a further detention of one year does not entitle the applicant for bail. So far the contention of the learned counsel that prosecutrix has stated that she has not been enticed away, is also not tenable. PW-3 proseutrix has clearly stated in her examination-in-chief that she has been forcibly taken into a vehicle and then taken to NOIDA, where three persons gang raped her.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground to accord bail to the applicant.
The fourth bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Ranjeet Sahu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail after repeated rejections despite prolonged detention.
Whether the prosecutrix's statement regarding lack of enticement constitutes a ground for bail in cases of rape.
Arjun
Abhai Kumar
Ranjeet Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
