The High Court rejected the bail application of Vikas Maurya charged under Section 377 IPC and POCSO Act. The court found no reason to grant bail and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months, citing Alakh Alok Srivastava vs. Union of India.
Trial to be concluded within six months by the trial court; bail 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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18915 of 2019
Applicant :- Vikas Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri Piyush Tripathi, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of informant, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Piyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant - Vikas Maurya with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.25 of 2018, under Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next argued that two witnesses have already been examined and trial is at final stage. It is also submitted that applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he is in jail since 18.03.2018.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the present application for bail. Since the trial of the case is at an advance stage, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the court below to conclude the trial itself instead of deciding the present bail application of the applicant on merit.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the complicity of the accused, 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 directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months, if 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) 2004 , if there is no legal impediment.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 3.5.2019 Anand Sri./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail at the final stage of trial under Section 377 IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the trial court has an order to expedite the trial to conclude within six months.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶11
AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 · Who else cites this
Vikas Maurya
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
