HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38761 of 2014 Applicant :- Vjay Dhakrey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Manish Yadav Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Agrawal for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandy holding brief of Sri Manish Yadav for the informant and perused the record.
This is a second bail application of the applicant in case crime No. 141/2013, under Sections 147, 148, 384, 342, 377, 452, 325, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station South, District- Firozabad. The first Bail Application No. 2335 of 2014 was dismissed for non prosecution by Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J., who has since retired.
According to the prosecution case, five persons including the applicant had taken the victim by force and after physically assaulting him, three persons including the applicant are said to have sodomized the victim. The injury report of the victim Anurag Gupta (Lalla) reveals 15 injuries. Injury no. 15 discloses mucosal tear with fresh blood on 6 O'clock position of anal region. The injury no. 15 was referred for sperm detection and it appears that a supplementary report was obtained, which discloses that no spermatozoa was detected and consequently, doctor opined that sodomy was ruled out although at the bottom of the report, the said injury was alleged to have been caused by penetration of hard object.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there were five accused out of which, two have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.1.2013 and 6.12.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 29500 of 2013 and 21792 of 2013 respectively. It has been submitted that the case of the co-accused, who have been granted bail was considered distinguishable from that of applicant only on the ground that against them no allegation of sodomy was there but since the supplementary medical examination had ruled out sodomy, therefore, the case of the applicant comes at par with that of co-accused, who have been granted bail and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity.
Learned AGA as well as counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that though the supplementary report rules out sodomy but the doctor has ruled out sodomy only on account of non presence of spermatozoa, which would not be legally justified as every intercourse may not be followed by ejaculation, which may reveal presence of spermatozoa. Even otherwise, it has been submitted that the supplementary report reveals penetration of hard object in the anal region. It has been submitted that since the medical examination of the victim reveals injury on the anal region caused by hard object and the person, who has been severely assaulted, has stated that he has been sodomized as well, therefore, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to draw any conclusion in that regard.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the submission of counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused, who have been granted bail as there are allegations against the applicant of having sodomized the victim and, at this stage, the medical evidence does not completely rules out unnatural offence, therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out.
The second bail application of the applicant stands rejected with a direction to the court below to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 2.9.2015 Arvind