Allahabad High Court
Jugraj Singh vs State Of U.P. on 6 December, 2019
Author: Ali Zamin
Bench: Ali Zamin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10042 of 2019 Applicant :- Jugraj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the material available on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.101 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506, 458 I.P.C., Police Station Narwal, District Kanpur Nagar.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution version on the point of country made pistol in the night of 25.4.2018, applicant committed rape upon the victim. He further submits that applicant is known to the prosecutrix as he used to come for stitching blouse of his wife and according to the statement of sister-in-law of the prosecutrix, victim was living at the upper story of the house and prosecutrix narrated the whole story to her and her husband also. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 02 of the affidavit. Prosecutrix is aged about 27 years having three children. He also submits that there is no possibility of fleeing away of the applicant 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. Applicant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 28.05.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that applicant have criminal history of 14 cases. He submits that as per statement of the victim, applicant committed rape upon her, therefore, he does not deserve any benevolence.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case and statement of the victim, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for bail. Therefore, the bail application of the applicant stands rejected. However, trial court is directed to dispose of the trial expeditiously adhering the provision 309 of Cr.P.C. without granting unnecessary adjournment.
Order Date :- 6.12.2019 m.a.