Sunil @ Popi Ji vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9961 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9021 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Sunil @ Popi Ji
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar,Amit Kumar Mishra,Mohd. Salim Khan,Suneel Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ram Krishna Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

This is the second bail application. The earlier bail application was rejected by this Court on 22.11.2021.

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.211 of 2021, under Section 376, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station-Sikandarabad, District-Bulandshahr is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

I have perused the earlier order of this Court from which it has been culled out that the age of the prosecutrix is 13 years and the main accused of this incident is one Baljit. So far as the present application is concerned, he has actively participated in fleeing away the main accused-Baljit and the victim. The next contention is that the role attributed to the applicant comes within the realm of Section 34 IPC for which learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rasal Chandra Vs. State of Banglore reported in 2022 2 SCC 668 whereby it has been mentioned that there has to be pre-meeting of mind between the accused persons and since, there is no premeditation of mind, no case under section 34 IPC is made out against the applicant.

I have perused the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim in which she has clearly mentioned that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of the offence rather raising alarm to the main accused and offered his scooty to flee away the accused as well as victim from the place of incident. His act of participation clearly indicates at this stage that there is pre-meeting of mind between them.

So far as the applicability of Section 34 IPC is concerned, same is subject matter of trial, whereby prosecution would adduce the evidence to substantiate the charge under section 34 IPC. At the stage of bail, the Court is not expected to have roving and microscopic appreciation of evidence.

Hence, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence in favour of the applicant.

Accordingly, the present second bail application stands REJECTED.

Order Date :- 5.4.2023

Sumit S