Allowed

Manoj Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2019BAIL/2136/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail for Manoj Singh accused of rape, sexual harassment, and criminal intimidation. The court considered the long-standing relationship between parties, the divorce proceedings filed by the prosecutrix, and the lack of telltale signs of rape in the medico-legal report as grounds for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each.

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2136 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Chand Kaushik,Anubhav Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Manoj Singh , in Case Crime no.536 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur.

¶6

Heard Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA along with Sri Avaneesh Shukla appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix in order to realize an old relationship between the two, which with passage of time has become out of context. It is pointed out that it is acknowledged by the prosecutrix in her statement made to the Doctor in confidence that she has known the applicant for the past 15 years, and were schoolmates. It is submitted that the two wanted to marry, but the prosecutrix was married to one Tripuresh Kumar Dubey on 26.04.2005. Of the said wedlock, the prosecutrix and her husband were blessed with two children aged about 12 and 4 years. After that marriage of the prosecutrix, the applicant distanced himself from her, but the prosecutrix stayed in touch despite resistance and reluctance by the applicant. It is pointed out that on account of the prosecutrix's action in maintaining contact with the applicant, a dispute arose between the prosecutrix and her husband, who has filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur being MP No.221 of 2018.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant, in particular, has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 8 of the said divorce petition, which reads as under:-

¶9

"यह ककि अपनने पपुररानने पनेम सम्बन्ध किको सराकिरार किरनने किने ललिए तथरा यराचची और उसकिने घर तथरा बच्चचों किको सदरा-सदरा किने ललिए छकोडकिर जरानने किरा कनररय पत्यथर्थी नने ललियरा वह मरायकिने जरानने किने बहरानने कदनरानांकि 2/2/2018 किको सररैयरा अपनने मरायकिने अकिनेलिची गई और अपनने पनेमची मनकोज लसनांह किको बपुलिराकिर कदनरानांकि 5/2/2018 किको बहहत दनेर तकि ररातची मम बरात ककियरा और सदरा-सदरा किने ललिए एकि ददसरने किरा हकोकिर सबकिको छकोडकिर मनकोज लसनांह किने सराथ चलिची गई।"

¶10

It is submitted that the applicant is a married man blessed with a son and a daughter. He has, time and again, persuaded the prosecutrix to go back to her matrimonial home for reason that she is not willing to live with her husband at any cost, and has deserted him. Her parents have not allowed her to stay with them. She is living alone in a rented accommodation, and has left back her two children with her husband. She has been continuously pressurizing the applicant to live with her and when the applicant has refused that outrightly, in the entirety of her situation, the present false prosecution has been brought against the applicant. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, in particular, that what clinches the issue of the prosecutrix and the applicant being into a relation is the fact that a perusal of a copy of the certificate dated 12.10.2018 issued by the Senior Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur shows that the prosecutrix went to meet the applicant in jail on 11.07.2018, for which there is no alternative explanation. It is emphasized that a perusal of the medico-legal report does not at all corroborate a case of rape as alleged

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

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 fact that there is apparent long acquaintance and relationship between parties, the fact that the prosecutrix has walked out of her marriage leaving behind her two children, the fact that the husband has filed for divorce citing her extra marital relations with the applicant, the fact that there are no telltale signs compatible with rape in the medicolegal report, the fact that the prosecutrix has gone to meet the applicant in jail on 11.07.2018, regarding which there is a certificate from the Senior Jail Superintendent on record dated 12.10.2018, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Manoj Singh , in Case Crime no.536 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, 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:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.1.2019 Anoop

Manoj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Shamsher Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Bhartiya Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Santram @ Baihana Chamar Vs State of U.P.

Muqeem Vs State of U.P.