Allahabad High Court
Deepak vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56078 of 2022
Applicant :- Deepak
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Deepak, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.310 of 2020 (S.T.No.423 of 2020), under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 20.09.2021 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28374 of 2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the charges in the present matter have been framed on 16.12.2020 and the trial is going on. It is argued that the first informant was produced before the trial court as P.W.1 and in her cross-examination, she has stated that her daughter has given high school examination twice. It is argued that as such there appears to be two high school mark-sheets and thus relying upon the same would not proper and the Court should revert to the age as opined through medical evidence to come to the conclusion regarding the age of the victim. It is argued that by the age as per medical evidence, the victim was a major as was opined to be 18 years as per certificate dated 4.9.2020 given by the C.M.O concerned. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 15 of the affidavit and is in jail since 28.8.2020.
Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in so far as the high school mark-sheets are concerned, as per his instructions received from the concerned police station, the date of birth in both the high school certificates are the same and there is no difference in the same. The reason for her giving high school examination twice was that once she had failed and then she had given it second time, as such the date of birth was the same and as per settled law, reliance has to be placed on the date of birth given in the high school mark-sheet. As such there is no new and fresh ground available.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court. The statement of first informant has been recorded as P.W.1. She has supported the prosecution case. There is no discrepancy in the date of birth of the victim in both the high school certificates as stated by learned counsel for the State on the basis of his instructions. Since there is no difference in both the date of birth as given in both the high school certificates, reliance has to be placed on the same and Court cannot revert to the medical opinion regarding age of the victim.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
It is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others : (2002) 1 SCC 655, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab : (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and another Vs. Union of India : (2017) 5 SCC 702, Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P: Criminal Appeal No.339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022) and the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No:- 8905 /2022: Mukesh Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another), subject to any legal impediment.
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
Gaurav
