Srawan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Archana Singh, Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A., Srawan Kumar Swarnkar

Court No. - 69

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajit Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kumar Vikrant, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3, Sri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2024 under Sections 376(3), 504, 506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Asother, District Fatehpur during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 06.5.2024. It is further contended that there is no evidence of commission of rape/penetrative sexual assault on the victim as no external injury has been found on her person as well as on her private parts. It is further submitted that bicycle of the applicant has not been recovered from the place of occurrence and till date, no witness has been examined by the learned trial court. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first informant came to meet the applicant in jail and demanded Rs.50,000/- from him in order to get the matter compromised. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.3 opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit that victim is a handicapped (deaf and dumb) girl aged about 11 years (as per radio-logical examination) and she cannot speak, therefore, her statement could not be recorded under sections 180 or 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that commission of such an offence with a minor and handicapped victim is very serious and heinous in nature, hence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

5. I have heard all sides and perused the record.

6. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have committed penetrative sexual assault/rape on the victim who is aged about 11 years, as per her radiological report, and it is submitted that she is handicapped (deaf and dumb) and cannot speak, therefore, her statement could not be recorded by the learned trial court till date.

7. Considering the seriousness of allegations and other attending facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.

8. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

9. Applicant is at liberty to approach this Court with a fresh bail application if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

May 7, 2026

Madhurima