Allahabad High Court
Jubair vs State Of U.P. on 28 March, 2019
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9617 of 2019
Applicant :- Jubair
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Inder Pal Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Inder Pal Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Perused the material on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Jubair with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 705 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 323, 328, 342 and 376-D I.P.C., Sections 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Medical, District-Meerut, during the pendency of the trial.
4. It has by argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Prosecution version as well as the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. do not corroborate to the medical evidence. It has been further argued that the applicant was the driver of a vehicle and the first informant i.e. the father of the victim was conductor (Khalashi) thereon, the first informant was demanding payment of 60 days while he has worked 45 days only, due to which dispute arose between them resulting in lodging of the present first information report. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. As the present case is false, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is lastly contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 21st November, 2018.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He states that from the aforesaid statement of the victim, it is clear that The applicant is not only the named accused but also is the charge-sheeted accused. In view of the above statement given by the victim before the court as well as in view of the fact that the victim has already supported the prosecution version in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. consistently as well as the victim has reiterated the same version before the Doctor, the present applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail. As per the medical examination report, the victim is minor also aged about 16 years. Upto this stage, there is no such material on the record on the basis of which it can be presumed that the applicant is innocent. The burden to proof the innocence of the applicant, which is required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, remains undischarged. So far as the dispute arose between the applicant and the first informant is concerned, no documentary evidence has been brought on record in support of the same. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a false implication of the present applicant, is liable to be refused on the ground that the social ramification of such crimes are very dishonourable to the victim and she suffers social death. He has next argued that the victim had absolutely no motive to concoct any such kind of story against the applicant and the allegation made by the victim is categorical and unambiguous. It has also been submitted that the offences of this nature which involves social defamation, there is always a general tendency to suppress such events at the initial stage in order to avoid the girl being stigmatized. Submission is that the offence committed by the applicant is egregious in nature and it speaks about depravity of the applicant's character, who had no moral qualms in violating modesty and honour of a girl of such tender age. Dealing with the complicity of applicant-accused and in light of the material on record, the learned A.G.A. vehemently submits that no case for bail is made out and the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. It is lastly contended that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicants but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected at this stage.
7. However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious, as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004, if there is no legal impediment. in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicants fully cooperate in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
8. Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
9. It is clarified that any observations, if any, made by this Court 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 28.3.2019
Sushil/-
