Dismissed

Mainpal Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023BAIL/30092/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J. rejected the bail application of Mainpal Singh, accused of sexual assault. The court noted lack of merits and high culpability, but ordered expeditious trial completion within six months citing Supreme Court precedents on delay in disposal.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; direction to decide the case expeditiously within six months of production of the certified copy of this order.

Mainpal Singh Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30092 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mainpal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Prasad,Hriday Kumar Singh,Kamla Singh,Muktesh Kumar Singh,Rajiv Kumar Pandey,Shyam Babu Vaish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

As per the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh dated 4.12.2020, notice to the informant is served personally.

¶8

Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 38 of 2020, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have ravished the daughter of the informant on 11.3.2020 at about 07:30 p.m.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed by about more than six hours and there is no explanation for said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that victim is a consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even her statement recorded on oath who has been examined as PW2. Learned counsel has indicated several contradictions in the statement of victim recorded by the Investigating Officer and also has indicated several inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses of fact. Learned counsel has stated that as per ossification test report age of the victim is 19 years and the medical examination report also does not suggest the use of any force on the victim as there is no injury found on the body of the victim who was examined on the very next day of the

¶12

offence. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 8.7.2020. Learned counsel has further stated that during the incarceration of the applicant his brother has been put to death.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that statement of the prosecution witnesses are intact and they have categorically indicated towards the applicant having committed the said crime. Learned counsel has stated that in the present non-permissive society no person would foist case of sexual assault against any person. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State Of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 , whereby the same view has been expressed by the Apex Court.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record as also taking into consideration the statements of victim and other witnesses, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶15

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶16

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 Vikas

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mainpal Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mainpal Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramendra Singh @ Badshah Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ratna Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kailash Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Basant Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Jaykaran Vs State of U.P. and Another