Allahabad High Court
Sarvesh Kumar Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 29 March, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15243 of 2022
Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Maurya
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Roshan Dubey,Banwari Lal Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 318 of 2021 under Sections 376,504,506 IPC and 67-A,66-E of I.T. Act, Police Station Thakurganj District Lucknow.
The first bail application of the applicant bearing Criminal Misc Bail Application No.11370 of 2021 (Sarvesh Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P.) was rejected by this Court by Hon. Ram Krishna Gautam, J. vide order dated 21.03.2022, which on reproduction reads as under:-
"Heard over bail application moved by accused-applicant, Sarvesh Kumar Maurya, in Case Crime No.318 of 2021, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 67-A, 66-E of Information Technology Act of Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 13.06.2021; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; prosecutrix was a nurse whereas applicant was technician in operation threatre; prosecutrix was major; she claimed to be unmarried and developed affairs with applicant, wherein, promise to marriage was there, hence physical relationship were established; subsequently, applicant came to know that prosecutrix was a married lady having her kids, after this, applicant tried to be away from prosecutrix, but she blackmailed the applicant and ultimately got this false case lodged, whereas, alleged occurrence of alleged date was not substantiated by landlady, who, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., had categorically said that no such occurrence took place on the alleged date, when prosecutrix was ill, suspected to be Covid positive and she was administered glucose by applicant, hence it is a false case and alleged viral of obscene photographs are nothing more than sending of same from cell phone of prosecutrix to cell phone of her husband only; the alleged obscene photographs, filed in counter affidavit, are taken from Google; it was of no concern with applicant. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that even if the physical relationship was there in live in relationship, obscene photographs were got viraled and they have been made part of counter affidavit as well of case diary, wherein, applicant is in obscene position with prosecutrix and it is admitted to have been sent from cell phone of prosecutrix, hence prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., had reiterated for sexual exploitation by applicant and then after blackmailing after getting viraled obscene photographs and sending it to husband of prosecutrix; offence is very heinous, there is every likelihood of tempering with evidence in case of release on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials on record and admission made by applicant for live in relationship and existence of those viral photographs and sending of those photographs to cell phone of husband of prosecutrix as well as looking to the heinousness of offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on bail as well as likelihood of fleeing from course of justice, but without commenting on merits of the case, there appears to be no ground for bail.
Before parting with this bail application, a direction is being given that obscene photographs, which have been made part of this case diary as well as part of counter affidavit, be kept in a sealed envelop so that it could not be with further obscenity. Let it be ensured by learned AGA as well as registry of this Court.
Accordingly, this Bail Application stands rejected."
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in jail for last about two years. He has submitted that there is not substantial progress in the trial and the prosecutrix is not cooperating with the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ansaar Mohammad Vs. The State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2022 LivelLaw (SC) 599.
Learned counsel for the applicant has tried to pursue the Court and has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence. While arguing his arguments he has argued the same thing which have already argued by him.The detailed arguments which are raised by learned counsel for the applicant in the present second bail application, has already been considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant on 21.03.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to show any fresh ground on which the bail application of the applicant can be granted, therefore, the second bail application is rejected.
However, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no substantial progress in the trial. Accordingly, I direct the trial court concerned to conclude the trial within ten months from today.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court concerned for compliance.
Order Date :- 29.3.2023
dk/
