Maulana [email protected] Kari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 7493 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9567 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Maulana [email protected] Kari
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rinki Gupta,Bed Kant Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 555 of 2019, under Sections 376(2)Ga, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

First bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 22.03.21, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 293 of 2020 on merits.

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that victim in her cross-examination before the trial court has not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 10.06.2019 is entitled to be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that victim is aged about 15 years and the applicant, who has committed rape on her, is Maulvi/Qazi. He also pointed out that victim, in her examination-in-chief, has supported the prosecution case, making allegation of rape against the applicant, but, when she was cross-examined, some contradiction has occurred in her statement.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute about the fact that victim, in her examination-in-chief, has fully supported the prosecution case, making allegation of rape against the applicant. This Court is of the view that to draw a conclusion from statement of a witness his/her entire statement (examination-in-chief and cross-examination) has to be considered in toto and not in isolation. Since, the trial of the applicant is going on, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 AIR 296, 'a minute evaluation of evidence is not to be analyzed by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C' at this stage. Considering the gravity of offence, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

Order Date :- 15.3.2023

Kashifa