Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 849 (ALL)

Dinesh Yadav v. State Of U. P.

2023-03-29

RAJ BEER SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused involved in Case Crime No.71 of 2022, under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Revatipur, District Ghazipur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that the applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that alleged incident has been shown of 05.07.2022 but first information report has been lodged after three days on 08.07.2022. It was submitted that the allegation of victim that applicant-accused has committed rape upon her, is thoroughly false. In medical examination report of victim, no injury has been shown on the body of victim. It is submitted that applicant-accused has been falsely implicated on account of enmity over land dispute. It was further submitted that applicant-accused is languishing in jail since 08.07.2022, having no criminal history, and that in case the applicant-accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that victim is a 15 years old minor girl and that in her statement 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has clearly stated that applicant-accused has committed rape upon her. Learned counsel for informant submitted that there is absolutely no enmity with the applicant-accused or with his family members on account of land dispute. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant-accused is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant-accused is hereby rejected.