Allowed

Ram Sahai Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2018BAIL/25121/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court granted bail to an accused charged under sections 376 IPC and POCSO. The court noted allegations of false implication, delay in FIR, and lack of evidence collection by police, leading to release on bail with personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnishing personal bond and sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and appearing in court.

Ram Sahai Singh Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25121 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Sahai Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Kumar Chaturvedi,Rajiv Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prabhakar Chandel,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the informant has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Indra Kumar Chaturvedi and Sri Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prabhakar Chandel and Sri SD Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Ram Sahai Singh in Case Crime No. 225 of 2018, under Sections 294, 364, 328, 376, 504, 323, 506 I.P.C., 6 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station- Kotwali Karvi, District- Chitrakoot with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

The prosecution version as adumbrated in the first information report lodged by the prosecutrix herself on 05.04.2018 regarding an alleged incident of rape by the applicant on her on 13.08.2013 at about 1 P.M. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that the victim came in touch with the applicant in the year 2012 and the applicant had helped her in getting a laptop in government scheme in the year 2012 and since then the applicant has been stalking her and used to pass obscene remarks. On 13.08.2013 at about 1 P.M. when she was waiting for auto outside the college the applicant came and offered her for lift in his Bolero Car and made her sit by his side. The applicant then offered her cold drink and after consuming it she became unconscious and when she became conscious she found herself in a jungle where the applicant raped her. He also prepared video clippings and clicked some photographs and also extended threats of making it viral and continuously kept on sexually exploiting her. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of enmity. The applicant had lodged a first information report against the father of the prosecutrix vide Case Crime No.41 of 2018 under Sections 419, 420, 406 IPC on 18.01.2018 through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was regarding the money advanced by the prosecutrix's father from applicant for securing a job to the applicant. Thereafter, an application for the registration of the F.I.R. was filed by the victim on 26.03.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that significantly the alleged victim had moved a complaint to SSP, Chitrakoot on 27.11.2017 and 28.11.2017 copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. In both the applications moved by the victim there is no allegation of any sexual assault on the victim except that the applicant used to harass her by extending threats and his behaviour is very indecent regarding which victim has moved the complaint to the police. On both the applications an inquiry was conducted by the orders of the higher authority

¶9

and it was found that there was some dispute over money transaction between the applicant and the father of the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant states that even if the prosecution version is presumed to be true which has been lodged after about four years and nine months of the alleged incident and no plausible reason for not lodging the F.I.R. at the earliest has been given. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police on account of the local village party politics in some cases whose explanation has been given in paragraph 21 to 27 of the affidavit. He further submits that the applicant is being challaned for an offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act assuming that the offence has taken place in the year 2013. It is also pointed out that during investigation the IO could not collect any obscene video clipping or picture as alleged by the victim. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 21.04.2018, deserves to be released on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have strongly opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has assigned specific role of committing rape by the applicant for the past several years and the applicant is a man of criminal propensities involved in at least 14 cases whose details have been given in counter affidavit filed by him. However, they could not dispute that most of the case relates to petty offences and in Case Crime No. 148 of 2000 under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC the applicant has been acquitted by the court. They also could not dispute that in the complaint made by the victim in November, 2017 there is no allegation of sexual exploitation of the victim.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Let applicant- Ram Sahai Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-

¶13

1.The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

2.The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶15

3.The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.9.2018 Vikas/-

Ram Sahai Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sahai Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

narendra nishad Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Alias Resu Katiyar Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sriram Chauhan Vs State of U.P.