Bail application rejected under IPC and POCSO. Court held applicant, accused of sexual intercourse with a 10-year-old, is not fit for bail despite evidence of false implication. Trial to be expedited. Order dated 11.12.2019.
Bail application rejected. Trial directed to be expedited.
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. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3027 of 2019
Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Madhesiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sharan Srivastava,R S Dubey,Savita Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 252 of 2018, under Sections 377 and 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Ghughli, District Mahrajganj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the FIR has been lodged with quite long delay and prosecution version is not supported by medical evidence and in this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out medical examination report, which has been annexed with supplementary affidavit. It was submitted that victim boy has not sustained any external injury whatsoever and that allegation of alleged unnatural sex are not supported by medical evidence. It was further submitted that applicant is neighbour of complainant and there was dispute of drainage between applicant and complainant of the case and complainant has threatened applicant for dire consequences. It was stated that on that account, applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2018 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the victim boy has made clear allegation in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that he was lured away by the applicant and he was shown obscene film and thereafter, he was subjected to carnal intercourse by applicant. It was submitted that victim boy is aged just 10 years and there are no reasons to falsely implicate
applicant.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation, gravity of offence, age of victim and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant-Deepak Kumar Madhesiya is hereby rejected.
However, keeping in view period of incarnation of applicant, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same as early as possible.
Order Date :- 11.12.2019 Mohit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in an affection case under IPC and POCSO Act given the age of the victim and lack of supporting medical evidence.
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail should be set aside in view of the applicants incarceration period.
Whether the trial should be expedited to hasten the final disposal of the case.
Deepak Kumar Madhesiya
State of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
