This is a bail appeal against the rejection of a bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge under POCSO and SC/ST Act.
Bail prayer declined; appeal dismissed.
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. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 212 of 2018 Appellant :- Nashik Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Laxmi Kant Bhatt,Vikrant Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
As indicated in the counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A., notice has been served personally on respondent No.02, yet no one has appeared on his behalf to oppose the bail prayer in the instant appeal.
Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against judgement and order dated 17.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar passed in Bail Application No. 231 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 901 of 2017, under Sections 342, 363, 366, 376D I.P.C., Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 3/4 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Shamli, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name was introduced by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after eleven days of the incident. However, she has also not named him in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and has merely stated that third accused used to work in a cloth shop. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no reliable evidence connecting the appellant with the present crime. Thus the appellant, who is in jail since 9.10.2017, deserves to be released on bail.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail prayer and submitted that the victim is aged about 15 years. She was gang-raped by the accused. Several injuries have been noted on the buttock and other private parts of her body and there is consistent version of the victim about commission of gang-rape. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation against appellant and evidence in support of it, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant.
The prayer for grant of bail to the appellant is declined. In the result, appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 4.9.2018 MN/-
Nashik
State Of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
