Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar 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. - 23611 of 2020
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sisodia,Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. No one is present on behalf of the informant despite service of notice.
3. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.19 of 2019, under Sections 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kalpi, District Jalaun with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the informant had gone along with his family in a marriage ceremony on 19.1.2019. At about 10:45 p.m., the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 8 years on his motorcycle outside the guest house and is stated to have attempted to rape her and was involved in aggravated sexual offence. After being suspicious of the said act and hearing shrieks of his daughter, the informant and other family members are stated to have reached there whereby applicant had run away from the scene of occurrence.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has stated that in all four prosecution witnesses have been examined to date. The witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, who are the informant and his wife, have not supported the prosecution story and have completely resiled from their earlier statements and have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim has been examined as PW-4 and she has corroborated the prosecution story but her story stands falsified on the ground that there is no injury observed by the treating doctor to the victim. Learned counsel has stated that the prosecution version with respect to the place of occurrence has changed several times. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 20.1.2019.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said case is of aggravated sexual offence committed by the applicant and shows the mental depravity as the victim was a tender girl of 8 years of age and she has categorically stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in court as well that she was subjected to the said offence by the applicant.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record and taking into consideration the said statement of the victim and her age being 8 years, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. 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.
11. 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
