Jitendra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 7681 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1116 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Jitendra And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amresh Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Giri
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Amresh Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Ashok Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Mohit Dubey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in Case Crime No.46 of 2022, under Sections 376-D, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Ahirauli Bazar, District Kushinagar with the prayer to enlarge them on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicants and four other co-accused persons are said to have outraged the modesty of the niece of the informant on 26.2.2022 at about 11:00 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has stated that the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded after a delay of 5-6 days, i.e., on 4.3.2022. Learned counsel has stated that the medical examination of the victim was undertaken after a delay of six days. Learned counsel has further stated that as per ossification test report the age of the victim is found to be 18 years and as per the school certificate her age is found to be 20 years as her date of birth is 8.1.2002. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the site-plan, whereby the place where the said gang-rape is stated to have taken place is a road and the said injuries could have been sustained at the road itself. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 1.3.2022.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim had sustained injuries on her internal parts as well as on her body. The said injuries corroborate the present allegations levelled in the FIR. Learned counsel has stated that in the present non-permissive society the girl avoids lodging the FIR in the case of sexual assault. The allegations of gang-rape have been made against the applicant in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which stands corroborated by the medical report.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the medical examination report of the victim and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

9. However, 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.

10. 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 :- 16.3.2023

Vikas