In a Criminal Bail Application under IPC and POCSO Act sections, the court rejected the plea for bail despite arguments of false implication, finding no ground to exercise discretion in favor of the accused in this heinous case involving a minor.
Bail application stands rejected; office directed to communicate order to concerned court below.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17838 of 2018
Applicant :- Vipin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh,Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Shoeb Khan
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Vipin with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.52 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Shahjanwa, District Gorakhpur.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that as per allegation in the FIR the daughter of the informant had gone to aunt's place and was staying there since 20 days. On 31.01.2018 at about 1.00 p.m., the applicant who is a resident of the same village, enticed away the victim. The family members of the victim searched for her and when she could not be traced, the FIR has been lodged. Subsequently, when the victim was recovered her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. was recorded in which she had clearly stated that the applicant took her away on motorcycle to his aunt's place where she was kept nearly for one month and he committed rape upon her every day. When she used to scream she was beaten by the applicant. The family members of the applicant supported him in the incident. The victim has further stated that she was locked in a room by the aunt of the applicant. It is argued that as per medical report, the age of the victim is 17 years. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he is languishing in jail since 24.03.2018. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the present application for bail by contending that as per statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is clear allegation of sexually assaulting the minor girl for nearly one month. As per
school leaving certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2006. It is next submitted that it is a case of such heinous crime where the social ramification of such crimes are very dishonorable to the victim. The victim suffers social death. The offences of this nature which involves social defamation, there is always a general tendency to suppress such events at the initial stage in order to avoid the lady being stigmatized. The offence committed by the applicant is egregious in nature and it speaks about depravity of the applicant's character, who had no moral qualms in violating modesty and honour of a girl. Dealing with the complicity of applicant-accused and in light of the material on record, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently submit that no case for bail is made out and the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious, as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment. in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicants fully cooperate in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.
Order Date :- 24.7.2019 Anand Sri./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving heinous sexual offences including rape under IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the circumstances of the case require expeditious trial to prevent delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶11
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vipin
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Manju Rani Chauhan
Parties & counsel
