Allowed

Rukam Lal @ Diwari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2019BAIL/3323/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a bail application in a case involving Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The court noted inconsistencies between the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and earlier exculpatory statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before a doctor. Bail was granted subject to conditions preventing tampering and ensuring court appearance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering, threatening witnesses, or repeating offences.

Rukam Lal @ Diwari Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3323 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rukam Lal @ Diwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant today is taken on record.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Rukam Lal @ Diwari , in Case Crime no.537 of 2017, under Sections 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Baghwala, District Etah.

¶7

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

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 08.06.2018, the prosecutrix has said that she is aged 25 years and on the morning of 13.02.2018 at 7.00 a.m., she went along with the applicant of her free will. The two went to Delhi and stayed at Ashok Nagar in a rented accommodation. It is also said that the two went to Haridwar before going to Delhi and married in a temple there. Thereafter, they lived as man and wife. It is also said that she is in the family way, into the fifth month. She has further said that she does not want to go with her parents and wishes to stay with her husband.

¶9

It must be remarked here that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 08.06.2018 has been got signed by the police, which is illegal. This Court has observed more than once that it is contrary to the prohibition on signing of a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. carried in Section 162(1) Cr.P.C., but it appears that the police are carrying on with this illegal practice, which must be discontinued forthwith. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the Doctor in confidence, where she has again asserted that she went away with the applicant of her free will, and that she has married him and had sex by consent. In contrast to the aforesaid stand in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has said that she had gone to answer the call of nature along with coaccused Omwati, where on way, they met one Abhilash Singh

¶10

and the applicant. It is said that co-accused Omwati asked the two to take her away. She raised an alarm, but Abhilash Singh muffled her voice. He was carrying a country-made pistol. It is further said that the applicant took her on a motorcycle to Delhi and kept her there for six months. It is also said that the applicant ravished her. Lateron, Abhilash left her somewhere on way. There she found out that it was Delhi and she was then recovered by the police. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the fact that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is in sharp contrast to what has been said earlier in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and that made to the Doctor, both of which are exculpatory, the prosecution case is inconsistent and wavering, on which no reliance can be placed to detain the applicant in jail pending trial.

¶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 the prosecutrix is a woman of matured years, the fact that she has spoken clearly exculpatory in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before the Doctor during her medico-legal examination, the fact that the prosecutrix has spoken inculpatory in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. giving out a completely different story that prima facie makes the prosecution undependable, 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, Rukam Lal @ Diwari , in Case Crime no.537 of 2017, under Sections 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Baghwala, District Etah, 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

¶19

commission.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the S.P., Etah by the Registrar General for compliance in the matter of recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.1.2019

¶25

Anoop

Rukam Lal @ Diwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukam Lal @ Diwari 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

Azruddin Vs State of U.P.

Shabaz Vs State of U.P.

Jabir @ Himanshu Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Alias Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harishchandra @ Haricharan Pal Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Sahni Vs State of U.P.