Allahabad High Court
Ramju @ Anand Giri vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30024 of 2020
Applicant :- Ramju @ Anand Giri
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi,Vijaya Shankar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Yadav
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. As informed by the learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 8.1.2023.
3. Second supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
4. Heard Sri Vijay Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
5. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.129 of 2020, under Section 376(3) IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Faizganj Behta, District Budaun with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
6. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have fleeced the victim to his house and thereby committed rape with her on 28.5.2020 at about 03:00 p.m.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about sixteen hours and there is no explanation for said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the injury report does not corroborate the prosecution story. Learned counsel has further stated that the story has been inflated by the prosecution as there are several contradictions in the statement of victim who has been examined as PW-2 in court. Learned counsel has stated that PW-2 has not been cross-examined as opportunity to cross-examine has been closed. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.5.2020.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the age of the victim was 13 years and 10 months on the date of occurrence as her date of birth is 12.7.2006. Learned A.G.A. has stated that as per ossification test report also the age of the victim was 14 years. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the statement of PW-1 informant is unrebutted and uncontroverted as he has not been subjected to cross-examination and there are minor contradictions in the statement of PW-2 who is a rustic young girl and such contradictions are bound to creep in the case of truthful witnesses.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record, taking into consideration that two witnesses of fact have been examined and they have deposed against the applicant and also taking into account the age of the victim, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
11. However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
12. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 16.2.2023
Vikas
