Shanid v. State Of Up And 3 Others

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.406 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Mundha Pandey, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the daughter of the informant on 13.8.2024 at about 11:00 p.m.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although, she is 17 years old as per the ossification test report. There is no medical corroboration of the said incident. It is a clear cut case of false implication.

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as he has been acquitted in the said case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.