Allahabad High Court
Banty vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 October, 2020
Author: Ali Zamin
Bench: Ali Zamin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 30 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14094 of 2020 Applicant :- Banty Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of informant.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.43 of 2019, under Sections 363, 368, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to F.I.R. version on 09.01.2019 at about 7:30, sister of the informant aged about 15 years went market to purchase vegetable but did not return and it was suspected that applicant enticed away her. He further submits that Kallu enticed away her. It is also submitted that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. As per statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., victim solemnized her marriage on 22.01.2019 with applicant in a temple and approached this Court also for protection through Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.1812 of 2019. The victim remained three months with the applicant. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has not levelled allegation against the applicant but in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has levelled allegation against the applicant. As per medical report age of the victim has been ascertained 15 years. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.04.2019.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that as per educational certificate date of birth of the victim is 17.01.2004. According to which on the date of incident she was near about 15 years. In medical report also age of the victim has been found 15 years, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, age of the victim and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, I do not find a fit case for bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Banty is hereby refused and the bail application is rejected.
However, trial court is directed to expedite this case in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible.
Order Date :- 5.10.2020 Jitendra