Allahabad High Court
Raja @ Rajendra Ahirwar vs State Of U.P. on 8 May, 2018
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3821 of 2013
Appellant :- Raja @ Rajendra Ahirwar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ramanuj Yadav,Jitendra Singh,Ramanuj Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Manoj Gautam
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 288999 of 2017.
This second bail application has been filed seeking the release of the appellant on bail in Session Trial No. 62 of 2012, under Sections 376(2)F I.P.C., P.S.- Kulpahad, District- Mahoba. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 27.2.2017 in absence of counsel for the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Only submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo maximum period of ten years but he has already undergone more than half sentence and therefore, he should be released on bail on the ground of longer detention.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has emphasized upon the fact that the age of the ravished victim-girl has been found in between 7 to 9 years and she was just a child of tender age. It was also pointed out that when she was medically examined perennial tear was found on her genitals. Submission is that to commit rape with a child girl speaks about perverse and lascivious propensities of the accused-appellant and it is apparent on the face of record that he is a person of depraved character and therefore, he does not deserve any liberal treatment. The statement of the victim has been recorded which has been duly corroborated by the other evidence produced in the court. There is sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant.
Ordinarily, in cases of longer detention this Court leans favourably towards the accused but such a consideration cannot be brought into application as a straight jacket formula to be applied in a cut and dried manner without paying any regard to the intrinsic merits of the case. So far as the present case is concerned, this Court does not see any such infirmity in the impugned judgement on the basis of which the same may be castigated. Counsel for the appellant has simply failed to make out even a prima facie case of bail in favour of the appellant. The evidence available on record is overwhelming, credible and cogent. The charge is grave which shocks the judicial conscience of the Court and therefore, the accused is not entitled to claim mercy of the Court just on the ground of longer period of detention. The accused is in jail because his guilt has been found proved by the overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution and his liberty has been curtailed after following due procedure of law and he is not under illegal detention. It is also not a case where counsel could have succeeded to show that this appeal has very bright prospect of being allowed after final hearing takes place. In fact, the accused-appellant could not make out any case on merit and could argue on nothing except the period of detention. No other aspect has been touched upon by the counsel. In such circumstances, this Court does not see any good ground to release the appellant on bail.
Therefore, the second prayer for bail of the appellant also stands rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 8.5.2018
Naresh
