The Allahabad High Court has denied bail to a man who has been in jail for four years for raping a minor by barging into her house.
A single-judge bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Anil Kumar.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case under Sections 376, 506, 452 of I.P.C and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of the Court by order dated 01.09.2021.
Counsel for the applicant has stated that Informant and Victim have been examined in Court and they have not supported the prosecution story, as such, there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the instant case.
The applicant has been incarcerated in jail since 13.05.2020, as such, more than 4 years have passed. His fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated, as such, he is entitled for bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
Per contra, State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application by stating that the statement of the victim recorded by the trial court is intact as her examination-in-chief and cross examination were taken up on 18.04.2024 and she has categorically nominated the applicant to have barged into her house and committed rape with her. The said statement stands unimpeached during her cross-examination taken up the same day but the cross-examination has been deferred at the request of counsel for the applicant and further cross-examination was taken up about 2 months and 9 days thereafter i.e on 27.06.2024 and the victim had not supported the prosecution story in it. The said act of the applicant for not completing the cross-examination the same day and deferring the matter for more than two months is an act to somehow win over the witness, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
“In the case, it appears that, on account of a long gap of two months and nine days between the examination-in-chief and cross examination, the witness was won over by the accused and she resigned from the version as deposed in the examination-in-chief which fully incriminates the accused.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by counsel for the parties, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also considering the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and the facts as narrated above by learned State Law Officer, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail,” the Court further observed while rejecting the bail application.