Dinesh Kumar (Second Bail) vs State Of U.P.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.

This is the second bail application.

It has been submitted on behalf of the accused-applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It has further been submitted that quarrel has taken place due to cutting of Masoor crop. Further submission is that the age of the prosecutrix is above 15 years as per School certificate. The age of the prosecutrix on radiological examination is found to be 12 years. Further submission is that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 has stated that the incident has allegedly taken place 10-15 days prior to the recording of her statement. There is coherence in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.with her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.

All these grounds which are being mentioned by the accused applicant in this bail application were available at the time of disposal of first bail application. The grounds of radiological age, her age as per date of birth, false implication of the applicant, have already been considered by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court at the time of disposal of Ist Bail application.

No new ground has been brought to the notice of this Court, which has cropped up after disposal of the first bail application.

The prayer for bail is refused.

This second bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

Learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the accused-applicant who is involved in case crime No. 32 of 2015 under section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Taalgaon, District Sitapur ,as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.