The court considered a bail application alleging inputs into assault and attempted illicit relations with a minor. The applicant claimed a matrimonial dispute; the state opposed based on the daughter's denial and torture allegation. Bail was rejected.
Bail application rejected.
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. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16659 of 2019
Applicant :- Rambir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Saran,Chitralekha Satsangi,Rohan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
According to the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant alleging that on 31.1.2019, he assaulted Dipali (wife of applicant) and try to make illicit relation with her daughter aged about 13 years, she denied, he tortured her several times.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that complainant is the second wife of applicant. Applicant transferred some money to his son of first wife due to which he has been falsely implicated in the present. There is purely matrimonial dispute and nothing has been done by the applicant. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 24.2.2019 (near about two months) having no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that according to statement of real daughter of complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that applicant tried to make illicit relation with her; she denied, he tortured her several times. Trial is going on. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence the bail application of applicant Rambir involved in Case Crime No. 108 of 2019, under Sections 354-A, 323, 504, 306/511 IPC & 8 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr is hereby rejected .
It is directed to the court concerned to decide the case expeditiously according to Section 309 Cr.P.C.
A copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 23.4.2019 A. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in the present bail application maintaining that the case is purely matrimonial in nature.
Whether the gravity of the offence under Sections 354-A, 323, 504 IPC, Section 306/511 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act warrants denial of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rambir
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
