HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 17556 of 2018
Applicant :- Satya Pal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Daksha Yadav,Sankatha Devi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant – Satya Pal with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. – 585 of 2017, under Sections – 302, 377 SectionI.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station – Ujhani, District – Badaun, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of murder and unnatural sex, punishable with life imprisonment or death;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 11.11.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 06.12.2017 ;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. It is stated that the applicant is a witness of inquest. In any case, he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) chargesheet has already been submitted. However, the exact status of the trial has not been informed. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the medical report does not corroborate with the allegation of unnatural sex. Further, it has been submitted, the F.I.R. had been lodged against unknown persons. The applicant was one of the inquest witness. Nine days thereafter, the mother of the deceased first named the applicant that too, on the basis of information received by her from certain other children, who had last played with the deceased. Thus, it has been submitted, the applicant has been falsely implicated. In absence of any evidence of offence under Section 377 I.P.C., there could not arise any motive to kill the child. The applicant has already undergone almost two years of imprisonment and, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A., who would submit that, at present, it is difficult to draw any inference as to commission of offence under Section 377 I.P.C. and that remained to be considered in the trial. Reference has been made to the testimony of five child witnesses, who have all stated the same fact that the deceased had been last seen with the present applicant. Thus, it has been submitted, strong evidence exists against the applicant of having committed henious crime of murder.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in view of the fact, that five child witnesses appeared to have stated that the applicant was last seen with the deceased, that too in the late hours of the evening before sun dawn, whereafter the body of the deceased recovered, the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and keeping in mind the nature of allegation made against the applicant, the bail application is rejected.
8. However, the liberty of the applicant may not be kept hanging in lurch for an indefinite period of time. The trial has remained pending for the last two years. Accordingly, it is expected that the trial court may make all efforts to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. without any undue or long adjournment.
Order Date :- 6.12.2019