Mosin @ Mohsim Second Bail vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 12773 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5652 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Mosin @ Mohsim Second Bail
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Singh,Saket Kumar Gupta
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0571 of 2020, under Sections 377 and 506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Aashiyana, District Lucknow.

3. The first bail application of the accused-applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.377 of 2021, which reads as under:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0571 of 2020, under Sections 377 and 506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Aashiyana, District Lucknow.

3. The applicant is an accused of sodomizing 9 years child; the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC fully corroborates the prosecution case.

4. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant is that the FIR is delayed by three months and, there is no medical report, supporting the version of the victim.

5. The Supreme Court, in catena of judgments, has held that the delay in such matter is not fatal, if otherwise the prosecution case is plausible; after expiry of three months, there would be no medical evidence to support the allegation, but the victim, who is 9 years old child, has fully supported the prosecution case in his statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

6. Considering the aforesaid, I do not find it a case of bail.

7. Thus, this bail application is rejected at this stage."

3. The victim has been examined in the Court, who has supported the prosecution case.

4. Considering the fact that the trial is going on and the victim has been examined, it would be appropriate to direct the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months, subject to full cooperation by the accused-applicant.

5. With the aforesaid observations/directions, bail application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 13.9.2022

Ram.