Allowed

Ranjeet v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2018BAIL/47375/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the criminal bail application filed by Ranjeet in connection with charges of rape and criminal intimidation. Considering the familial dispute, pending litigation, and lack of medical corroboration in the absence of injury, the Court found it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering or harassing witnesses.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47375 of 2018 Applicant :- Ranjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- B. Malik,Amit Malik,Arshid Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶3

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Ranjeet in connection with Case Crime No. 0153 of 2018 under Section 376, 506 IPC, P.S. Hafizpur, District Hapur.

¶4

Heard Sri Amit Malik, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶5

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix and the applicant are related in the manner that the husband of the prosecutrix and the applicant are co-laterals, descended of common ancestor, as close as the grand-father. It is submitted that there are issues relating to division of a property between their branches, where the husband of the prosecutrix has repudiated a family settlement made by their common ancestor, during his life time. In this regard, there is a specific allegation in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit which the State, on the basis of their instruction, have not denied. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court in this connection to an application that was made to the S.P., Hapur regarding the ongoing familial dispute between the parties and false implication on that account, in regard whereto, an enquiry report was submitted on 15.10.2018 by the Circle Officer, P.S. Hafizpur District Hapur, affirming the fact that this kind of dispute in the family was there and heart burning over litigation was there. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the background of the aforesaid dispute between the prosecutrix's husband and the applicant relating to division of ancestral property, the present prosecution has been launched. He has further submitted that the prosecutrix, though has come up with a categorical allegation of rape against the applicant committed on 30.08.2017, the same does not find the remotest corroboration from the medico legal examination report dated 16.10.2018. The prosecutrix has not been found to have sustained any kind of external or internal injury. It is also argued that in the past also the prosecutrix had brought a similar prosecution for offences under Sections 354A, 452 IPC vide Case Crime No. 201 of 2017, P.S. Hafizpur, District Hapur wherein the prosecutrix filed an affidavit resiling from the prosecution. It is submitted that looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, prosecution stands on patently

¶6

unsure and shaky ground, on the basis of which the applicant cannot be detained pending trial.

¶7

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the fact that the parties are related as co-laterals where there is a background of a property dispute, prima facie there is pending litigation between the families relating to that property, that there is also a similar allegation relating to molestation against the applicant that was subsequently withdrawn, and, all above, the medico legal report does not support a case of rape, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶9

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Ranjeet involved in Case Crime No. 0153 of 2018 under Section 376, 506 IPC, P.S. Hafizpur, District Hapur be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶12

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

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

¶14

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.12.2018

¶18

Deepak

Ranjeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet 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

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Gulfan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajeshwar Prasad Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and Others

Prahlad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shivpal Vs State of U.P.