HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 26879 of 2019
Applicant :- Abhishek @ Chaucha
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Abhishek @ Chaucha with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Special Sessions Trial No. 63 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 628 of 2017, under Section 377 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Adampur, District-Amroha, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations made in the first information report, on 13th October, 2017 at 06:30 p.m. when the grand-son of the informant, namely, Sachin went to field for nature’s call, the accused, namely, Abhishek @ Chaucha (applicant) has committed unnatural offence upon him. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village politics. He has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 14th October, 2017.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the present applicant for enlargement of his bail. He submits that the applicant is not only the named accused but is also a charge-sheeted accused. In the statements recorded under Sections 161 and Section164 Cr.P.C., the victim has supported the prosecution case as unfolded in the first information report. The medical examination report of the victim also corroborate the prosecution case. There is consistency in all the statements. Seeing the nature of the commission of the alleged offence upon a minor child, who was seven years old, the applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. It is, thus, urged that the present bail application of the applicants is liable to be rejected.
It is lastly submitted that the trial has already commenced and on date one witness of fact, namely, P.W.-1 i.e. the first informant (Gopal) has already been examined. As such, it is urged that instead of considering the bail application of the applicant, the interest of justice shall better be served in case the trial itself is directed to be expedited by this Court.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India Another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment. If possible, the trial court shall proceed with the matter on day to day basis.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 8.7.2019