Bail application allowed for applicant Mohanlal Alias Makkhan under Section 376 IPC. Court considered parity with co-accused and inconsistencies in prosecutrix's statements as grounds for bail.
Released on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45629 of 2018
Applicant :- Mohanlal Alias Makkhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Virendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Mohanlal Alias Makkhan, who is in jail since 26.07.2018, in Case Crime No.315 of 2018, under Sections 376 IPC, Police Station Shamshabad, District Agra.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR in the present case has been lodged by the brother of the prosecutrix Rohtan Singh, on account of the fact that the prosecutrix has married a man of her choice, one Krishna. The co-accused Ravi who is a nephew (being a son to the cousin of the prosecutrix) along with the applicant, his friend have helped the prosecutrix in marrying the man of her choice, and, to chagrin of her brother, who has consequently lodged a motivated and false FIR. It is further submitted that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded by the prosecutrix was under pressure and coercion from her brother inculpating the applicant and his friend, co-accused Ravi for the reason last mentioned. It is pointed out that the prosecutrix in her signed statement to the doctor during her medico legal examination, which she refused to undergo, has categorically stated that she is 21 years of age and six months ago, married Krishna, in the Arya Samaj Mandir and also went for a court marriage. She has specifically stated that she has not been ravished and, therefore, does not desire to be medically examined. It is pointed out that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has clearly brought out the fact that she has married Krishna of her choice, to which her brother, the first informant, was averse. She has denied that she has ever been ravished. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and that made to the doctor, the
allegations in the FIR and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., made under pressure of her family members, particularly, her brother, make the prosecution unbelievable. It is further argued that the prosecutrix is a matured person of 21 years and the applicant is a friend of Ravi, a son to her cousin, who has been implicated to spite him for the help that he rendered the prosecutrix in marrying a person of her choice, contrary to the wishes of her family. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the main accused Ravi has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44074 of 2018 on account of which the applicant is entitled to bail on ground of parity.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factum of parity.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and in particular, the stand of the prosecutrix in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and that made to the doctor that is at variance with the stand of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as also the factum of parity, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .
Let the applicant Mohanlal Alias Makkhan , who is in jail since 26.07.2018, in Case Crime No.315 of 2018, under Sections 376, IPC, Police Station Shamshabad, District Agra be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Deepak
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on grounds of parity with another accused and discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements.
Whether the case involves tampering with prosecution witnesses under parol evidence rules.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohanlal Alias Makkhan
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
