In a bail application under Sections 376, 452 IPC and POCSO for entering a 12-year-old girl room and committing rape, the High Court rejected bail citing Supreme Court precedent and gave the trial court direction to expedite proceedings.
Bail application rejected; trial 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. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39850 of 2015
Applicant :- Mansoor @ Badela Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Singh,Prakash Chandra Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the applicant Mansoor @ Badela who is involved in Case Crime No.117 of 2015, under Section 376, 452 I.P.C. and Section 4 of protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Deoraniya, District-Bareilly.
As per prosecution version, on 19.05.2015 at about 01:00 A.M. in the night, applicant entered into the residence of prosecutrix aged about 12 years and committed rape on her.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that first information report has been lodged in an ordinate delay without any plausible explanation. Prosecution version is not natural. Applicant is languishing in jail since 01.06.2015 having no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, applicant should be released on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and contended that prosecutrix is minor girl of aged about 12 years. Prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. specifically stated that applicant has committed rape on her.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and anr., 2004 7 SCC 528 (II) has held that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail.
In view of above, the bail application stands rejected.
However, Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of this case expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 10.7.2019/AKT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant entitled to bail despite incarceration since arrest in a rape case involving a minor.
Whether the delay in lodging FIR and lack of criminal antecedents justify release on bail in this serious offense.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh RanjanApplied¶9
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and anr., 2004 7 SCC 528 (II) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mansoor @ Badela
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
