NIRANJAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA is taken on record.

(2.) This third bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 250 of 2013, u/ss 363, 366 and 376 IPC, Police Station- Mungra Badshahpur, District- Jaunpur. The first bail was rejected by another Bench on 8.7.2014 on merits while the second bail application was rejected by this Court on 17.9.2016 on merits.

(3.) The main contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that despite observation that was made by the Court about the expediting the trial the same has not been concluded as yet and as the applicant was given liberty to renew the prayer for bail after six months, hence the present third bail application has been moved and the applicant should, therefore, be released on bail on the ground of his detention. Learned counsel for the applicant has tried to further point out that when the first informant namely, Chhote Lal who is the father of the victim, was examined in the trial court he has made categorical statement that the applicant Niranjan did not commit any kind of incident with his daughter. He also further deposed in the court that when he lodged the First Information Report, he never made any allegations against the applicant. In fact, he has further gone to depose that even during the course of investigation he never gave any incriminating statement against the applicant before the Investigating Officer. He has been categorical in making statement in the court that the applicant has been falsely implicated as accused in the case by the police. Learned counsel for the applicant has laid emphasis upon the deposition of the first informant made in the court in which he has gone to state that when his daughter was recovered, at that stage also, she had not made any allegations against the applicant. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that though during the course of her statement given in the court the victim has implicated the applicant but the deposition of her father gives a complete rebuff to the allegations made by her against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further pointed out that when the mother of the victim was examined in the court she also during the course of her cross-examination has admitted at one stage that she had not disclosed any allegation against the applicant before the Investigating Officer and she is implicating the applicant in the incident for the first time in the court. She has further gone to state in the court that the applicant is the man having family and after the said incident the applicant continued to live normally in his house as usual. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the statements as have been made by the father and mother of the victim create very strong doubt in the statement made by the victim in the court and cuts at the root of her credibility so far as the implication of the applicant in the incident is concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 28.9.2013 and in view of the specific observations made by this Court while passing order rejecting the bail earlier that the trial ought to be concluded at the earliest the same has been allowed to drag on for no fault which may be attributable to the applicant and even though the opportunity to renew the prayer for bail within six months was conferred on the applicant, much more than six months have elapsed since then and it is almost two years now since the rejection of the applicant's second bail that this bail relief has been sought by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has also completed approximately five years in jail and has no bright prospect of the trial being concluded at an early date and, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail both on the ground of his prolonged detention and also in view of the exonerating statements made by the first informant and his wife.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.