Allowed

Harishchandra @ Haricharan Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2019BAIL/3336/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to Harishchandra Pal in a criminal case involving IPC Sections 376-D, 506, etc. The court noted the medical report lacked signs of rape, the rape charge lay only against a co-accused, and the FIR was filed delayed under Sec 156(3) Cr.P.C. amidst a monetary dispute.

What did the court decide?

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

Harishchandra @ Haricharan Pal Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3336 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Harishchandra @ Haricharan Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Priyanka Devi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the name of the applicant to bring it in accord with that mentioned in the bail rejection order.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Harishchandra Pal @ Haricharan Pal, in Case Crime No.95 of 2018 under Sections 452, 504, 506, 376-D, IPC, Police Station Kharela Mahoba, District Mahoba.

¶7

Heard Ms. Priyanka Devi Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudheer Kumar Pathak, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR has been lodged in the present case after a delay of 51 days through proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that with much emphasis that there is a dispute over a sum of money that the prosecutrix's husband owes to the applicant's father that he has not paid, and in order to bargain with the applicant and his father into giving up that claim, the present prosecution has been brought. In this connection, learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded

¶9

under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where it is pointed out that the monetary issue with applicant's father is acknowledged, though, interchanging the debtor for the creditor. Learned counsel for the applicant, in particular, highlighted the fact that according to the prosecution case appearing in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of rape against the applicant, which is confined to coaccused Rajesh. The applicant is alleged to have assisted Rajesh that makes the account of the story to its face sound incredible. It is further submitted that in the medico legal report, there is no sign of injury indicated anywhere that may bear out with a case of rape. The provisional opinion expressed by the doctor is that "there are no suggestive sign of vaginal penetration". Learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking to the aforesaid facts, no case is made out against the applicant.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

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 no allegation of rape against the applicant, but against co-accused Rajesh, the allegation against the applicant is one of abetting, the fact that the allegation has come prima facie in the background of a monetary dispute of which mention is made in the statement of the prosecutrix also under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the fact that the medico legal report does not prima facie corroborate a case of rape, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Harishchandra Pal @ Haricharan Pal , in Case Crime No.95 of 2018 under Sections 452, 504, 506, 376-D, IPC, Police Station Kharela Mahoba, District Mahoba 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:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.1.2019 NSC

Harishchandra @ Haricharan Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra @ Haricharan Pal 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

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.

Rukam Lal @ Diwari Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Sahni Vs State of U.P.