Bhawanidin vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 4918 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 86
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46459 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Bhawanidin
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Shivhare
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Agrawal,Vijayendra Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No.14 of 2020, under Section 376, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that age of victim is 62 years and it is not possible to commit rape with the lady. In the F.S.L. report, no sign of rape was found on the person of the victim at the time of medical examination. He next submitted that initially the first information report was lodged under sections 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and applicant was bailed out by the court concerned. After one year and 10 months, an order for further investigation was passed. There is no evidence available against the applicant on record. He next submitted that applicant has not misused the bail granted to him by the Court. There are contradictions in the statement of victim recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr. P.C. Victim is grand mother of some children and it is not believable that she was sleeping at the tube-well leaving her house. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 26.08.2022 having criminal history 32 cases to his credit and out of 32 cases, he has been acquitted in 23 cases and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

Per-contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that applicant has criminal history of 32 cases to his credit. Victim in her statement under section 161 and 164 Cr. P.C. has corroborated the version of the prosecution and has made specific allegation of rape against the applicant. D.N.A.test was found to be positive in the forensic examination and report is available. The applicant is habitual offender and he is not entitled for bail.

In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another (2015) 3 SCC 527, Criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

Order Date :- 14.2.2023

T.S.