Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23589 of 2009 Petitioner :- Raju @ Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- R.S. Shukla,Lalit Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,A.P.Tewari Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was
falsely implicated in the present case along with the other co-accused.
In fact no such incident took place. The prosecutrix was aged about 13
years. However, as per the medical report she was aged about 16 years
and found habitual. The charge was framed in the month of September,
2009. However, the statement of the prosecution witnesses including
the prosecutrix has not yet been recorded, hence the applicant is entitled
for bail who are in jail since 16.6.2009.
Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the complainant opposed the aforesaid
prayer of bail on the ground that it was a gang rape and the prosecutrix
was minor. There was also no reason for false implication of the
applicant, hence he is not entitled for bail.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merit, it is not
a fit case for bail.
However, the trial court is excepted to conclude the trial as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months.
Order Date :- 29.7.2010
Rk