Allowed

Ram Krishna v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019BAIL/44645/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Sections 366, 363, and 376 IPC, the Court allowed the applicant's prayer. The Court noted inconsistent statements from the prosecutrix and the lack of prima facie medico-legal evidence of injury, deeming it a fit case for bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant ordered to be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.

Ram Krishna Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44645 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Sharma 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 Ram Krishna, in Case Crime No.342 of 2018 under Sections 366, 363, 376, IPC, Police Station Katra, District Shahjahanpur.

¶6

Heard Sri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that going by the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age, certified by the Medical Officer, vide his certificate dated 1.08.2018, based on an ossification test, she is about 19 years old. She is thus, clearly a major. It is submitted that the FIR giving rise to the present crime has been lodged by the prosecutrix's father. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., on 28.7.2018, where the prosecutrix has said that she was married by her father to the applicant in a temple. Lateron, after passage of some time, the prosecutrix learnt that the applicant was already married. She reported the said fact to her father, who lodged the present report charging her husband. She has further said that she wants to live with her husband. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has spoken

¶8

inculpatory where in contrast to the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has said that in the afternoon hours, she was going to her fields proceeding from home and when she was waylaid by the applicant along with co-accused Prem Pal and Ram Niwas. They put a handkerchief to her nose and made her sniff something deleterious. She went unconscious. She regained sense the same day. She has stated that the applicant ravished her while his brother and father beat her up. She has denied her marriage to the applicant. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has been made under the pressure of her father. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the medico legal report does not show any external or internal injury sustained by the prosecutrix. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the clearly inconsistent stand of the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecution is not dependable, but one that is shaky and wavering. It is submitted, moreover, that the medico legal evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution case.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

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 statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is inculpatory, but the one under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is exculpatory, the fact that the medico legal report does not show, prima facie, evidence of rape, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Ram Krishna , in Case Crime No.342 of 2018 under Sections 366, 363, 376, IPC, Police Station Katra, District Shahjahanpur 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.1.2019 NSC

Ram Krishna v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Krishna 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

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Muniram Vs State of U.P.

Tottarpal Urf Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Guddu @ Sakeel Vs State of U.P.

Qayum Siddiqui Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Gautam @ Johny Vs State of U.P.