Criminal Court No. 64 rejected bail application regarding rape accusations. Injury report supported allegations. Trial to conclude within six months under Section 309 Cr.P.C. per Supreme Court principles.
Bail application rejected; trial directed to conclude 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. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29389 of 2018
Applicant :- Avnish @ Bhauan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Sukhvir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Pati Tiwari
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Avnish @ Bhauan in connection with Case Crime No. 98 of 2018, under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Ayana, District Auraiya.
Heard Sri Sukhvir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He submits that the prosecutrix is 28 years old and a mother of three children, whereas the applicant is a young man of 23 years. They are also close relatives. It is submitted further that in the medico legal report there is no injury sustained by the prosecutrix to her private parts that may be compatible with a case of rape. It is also urged that the applicant has no criminal history, and, is in jail since 01.04.2018.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted by them that the applicant is consistently nominated with an allegation of rape by the prosecutrix in the FIR, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with the episode being described to the effect that when she went to answer the call of nature she was assaulted in the fields and ravished. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
complainant that in the medico legal report, at page 40 of the paper book, there are injuries to the back, hands, thighs etc. which go with a case of ravishment in a field as alleged.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the applicant is consistently nominated in the statements of the prosecutrix from the FIR to that under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with an allegation of rape, there is evidence of some injury sustained suggestive of the struggle involved, 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, accordingly, stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that trial pending before the concerned court be concluded expeditiously and 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 judgment 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 for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 9.1.2019 BKM/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail in a rape case with consistent allegations and injuries suggestive of struggle.
Whether the trial court should expedite the trial to avoid further detention of the applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabExplained¶12
2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Avnish @ Bhauan
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
