Criminal bail application admitted where the court found it a fit case for enlargement despite allegations of rape, noting absence of medical corroboration and arrests pending in a separate case. Applicant directed to furnish bond.
Allow bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
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. - 23228 of 2019
Applicant :- Kamaresh Chandra Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Mangal Pandey,Kuldeep Kumar Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Singh,A.N.Rai
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By way of instant bail application, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail in Complaint Case No. 1207 of 2017 (Seema Devi v. Kamresh Chandra Rai and others), under Sections 376, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station - Katra, District - Shahjahanpur.
As per prosecution version, on 22.04.2017 at about 11.00 P.M., the applicant and other co-accused entered into the residence of the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years and committed gang rape on her by threatening to kill her. The prosecutrix filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which was treated as complaint by the learned Magistrate. After enquiry, the applicant and other co-accused have been summoned.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that wife of the applicant has filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against husband of the prosecutrix for committing rape on her. In counterblast, the prosecutrix has filed this application with false allegation, only to falsely implicate the applicant. There is no medical report to corroborate the prosecution version of rape on the prosecutrix. He further contended that the impugned summoning order has been passed without examining all the material witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.02.2019.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that wife of applicant had filed application with false allegation against Rajiv Kumar Mishra, husband of the prosecutrix and his two other family members for committing rape on her. The applicant was doing illegal practice of abortion. The prosecutrix has made several complaints against him. Accordingly, the applicant has committed this offence. One criminal case other than the
present one is pending against the applicant.
The prosecutrix has not been medically examined by doctor in support of fact of rape against her.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant - Kamaresh Chandra Rai be released on bail in the aforesaid complaint case number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Application stands allowed .
Order Date :- 4.7.2019 I. Batabyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible to be enlarged on bail in a case involving allegations of gang rape under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
Whether the absence of a medical report and lack of material witness examination warrant bail.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Kamaresh Chandra Rai
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
