Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Pal vs State Of U.P. on 22 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92154
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17840 of 2024
Applicant :- Akhilesh Pal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This is the second bail application. First was rejected vide order dated 11.5.2023 by a reasoned order and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:
" In the present case, victim is just above 18 years. Allegations in regard to commission of offence of rape remains consistent on perusal of contents of F.I.R. lodged by victim herself as well as her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of other witnesses recorded during investigation also corroborates the prosecution case including threat perception.
So far as delay of four months in lodging F.I.R. is concerned, evidence of victim as well as other witnesses remain consistent that there was a threat perception of dire consequence as well as threat of acid attack also which prima facie appears to be sufficient that delay of four months may not be an adverse factor for prosecution case.
Considering above submissions, statements of victim, gravity of offence as well as gravity of threat perception and since the statement of victim has not been recorded till date during trial, no case of bail is made out.
Accordingly, bail application is rejected.
However, Trial Court shall take all endeavour to record statement of victim within a period of three months from today, if there is no legal impediment and thereafter applicant will be at liberty to file a fresh bail application before Trial Court, if so advised."
2. Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A.
3. Applicant has approached this Court for bail in Case Crime No. 340 of 2022 under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Raksha, District-Jhansi.
4. In pursuance of an order passed by this Court learned Trial Court has submitted a status report that out of proposed 14 prosecution witnesses, five have already been examined including the Investigating Officer.
5. In the status report date wise proceedings are mentioned and it appears that trial was delayed mainly on the ground that co-accused who are on bail have not appeared.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated about prior enmity with accused side which could be a reason for false implication. He further submits that there is a delay of four months in lodging the F.I.R. and no medical examination was conducted as well as applicant is in jail since 14.8.2022 i.e. about one year and nine months and there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.
7. Aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned A.G.A. who submits that statement of the victim appears to be consisted against the applicant.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances considering subsequent event and present status of trial that out of proposed 14 prosecution witnesses, five have already been examined including the Investigating Officer and victim as well as co-accused persons have taken all remedy available with them and have filed a discharge application also as well as on few dates trial could not proceed since co-accused who are on bail have filed exemption application.
9. I have considered the arguments in regard to testimony of victim. However from a bare perusal of examination-in-chief of victim it remains consistent against the applicant as well as she has explained the delay in lodging of F.I.R. So far as cross-examination of victim is concerned, it cannot be considered in piecemeal as well as any observations made by this Court at this stage would prejudice the case of either of the parties.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, period of incarceration as referred above is not a prolong detention and in this regard Court takes note of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Ajwar Vs. Waseem & Ors, 2024 INSC 438.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, this second bail application is rejected. However, considering that applicant is in jail since one year and nine months, therefore, learned Trial Court is directed to take all endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months as proposed in the status report and in case trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period or has not substantially proceeded, applicant will be at liberty to approach this Court or learned Trial Court as advised along with status of trial.
12. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
SB
