HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 1686 of 2018
Appellant :- Sonu @ Mohd. Asif
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Bhanu Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi
Hon’ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Sri Chandra Bhanu Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N. Singh, learned AGA for the State. None for the private respondent.
The appeal is formally admitted for hearing.
With the consent of parties, the case is heard finally.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I/Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 872 of 2018, whereby the court below has rejected the said application as filed by the appellant for grant of bail, arising out of Crime No. 064/2018 under Sections 354, Section504, Section506 of I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(V)A of the Scheduled Castes and SectionTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Naseerabad, District Raebareli.
As per prosecution case, on 05.12.2017 at 11.11 a.m., FIR was lodged by mother of the prosecutrix alleging in it that while the prosecutrix was playing in the agricultural filed and she was working in nearby field, the appellant took the prosecutrix along with him, naketed her and naketed himself also and while he was about to commit rape upon the prosecutrix, she reached and after seeing her, appellant fled away from the spot. The age of the prosecutrix is about eight years.
Counsel for the appellant submits:
(i) that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(ii) that mere making the prosecutrix nude would not constitute any serious offence.
(iii) that the prosecutrix has not been medically examined.
(iv) that the provisions of the SC/SectionST Act do not attract against the appellant, as it is not the case of the prosecution that because she belongs to a particular caste, she was subjected to offence by the appellant.
(vi) that the appellant is in jail since 20.04.2018. The charges have not been framed and the trial may take some time for its final disposal, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail.
On the other hand supporting the impugned order, it has been argued by State counsel that an eight years old girl has been subjected to molestation and had the mother of the prosecutrix would not have reached there, the appellant would have succeeded in committing the rape. He submits that in Section 354 I.P.C., medical examination is not necessary and in her diary statement and 164 SectionCr.P.C. statement, prosecutrix has categorically stated as to the manner in which she was naked by the appellant and an attempt was made to commit rape.
Considering the totality of the case, in particular, the nature of allegation leveled against the appellant and the evidence collected by the prosecution, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
If the charges have not been framed, trial court is directed to do so expeditiously and make all endeavor to complete the trial within eight months. In case trial is not completed within eight months, appellant would be at liberty to revise his application before the trial court and in the eventuality of doing so trial court shall decide the same in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 18.7.2019