In this bail application, the High Court dismissed the second plea of an applicant in a POCSO and rape case, holding that no fresh grounds were presented beyond those rejected in a prior application.
Prayer for enlargement on bail during trial was dismissed.
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. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5222 of 2022
Applicant :- Rakesh @ Chandan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anshul Nigam
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anshul Nigam, Panel counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State are present.
This is the second bail application which has been filed by the applicant Rakesh @ Chandan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 105 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli.
First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6450 of 2021 (Rakesh @ Chandan Vs. State of U.P. and another).
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the victim was not willing for her medical examination as per the medical examination report and as such the corroboration of allegation of rape is missing. It is further argued while placing paragraph 9 to the affidavit in support of the application that as per the Parivar Register, the victim is shown to be born in the year 2002 and, as such, she was aged about 18 years at the time of incident. It is further argued while placing paragraph No. 18 to the affidavit that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future as due to the outbreak of Corona Pandemic, the examination of witness is affected. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is in jail since 06.08.2020.
Per contra, learned Panel Counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee as well as learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that no fresh and new
ground has been pleaded and argued before the Court. It is further argued that order rejecting the first bail application of the applicant is an order on merit and in detail considering every aspect of the matter. It is argued that there is nothing on record to show that the trial would be delayed as the ground taken of Covid Pandemic is already over and the trial courts are functioning. It is argued that insofar as Parivar Register is concerned, the source of year of birth as shown therein is highly doubtful and cannot be relied upon and given preference over the age as mentioned in the school records. It is argued that as such the present application deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merit on 14.07.2021. There is no fresh and new ground taken in this application.
The bail application thus stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2023 Vijay
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to the second bail applicant in a case involving serious offences under IPC and POCSO when no fresh ground is taken.
Rakesh @ Chandan
State of U.P.
Samit Gopal
Vijay Kumar Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
