Allowed

Muqeem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2019BAIL/45617/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a bail application filed by Muqeem accused under Section 376 IPC. The court found the case fit for bail due to a definite motive by the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the applicant to bargain her son's freedom in a related rape case where the son was subsequently convicted. Despite the gravity of the charge, the lack of medical evidence supported the bail plea.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each, subject to standard conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45617 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Muqeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Muqeem , in Complaint Case no.6445 of 2016, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Tanda, District Rampur.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri J.B. Singh, 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 mala fide in retaliation to an FIR lodged by the applicant's wife against the prosecutrix's son, Iqbal on 02.06.2015 in relation to an incident dated 26.05.2015 reporting a case of rape committed by the prosecutrix's son, where the applicant's wife was a victim. The aforesaid case was registered as Case Crime no.136 of 2015, under Sections 450, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad. In the said case, the police investigated the matter, and submitted a charge sheet against the prosecutrix's son on 21.06.2016. The prosecutrix's son has been tried, convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.3, Moradabad. It is submitted that the present FIR regarding an alleged incident dated 24.05.2015 was lodged on 28.06.2015 through proceeding under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the prosecutrix against the applicant. This FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix in order to bargain her son's freedom in the case at the relevant time got registered by the applicant's wife. It is submitted that there is absolutely no evidence in support of the present crime, including medico-legal evidence, which may corroborate a case of rape. The injury report shows no injury, either external or internal. The police after carefully examining the entire material collected during investigation submitted a final report in favour of the applicant on 17.09.2015. The report was protested by the prosecutrix on 08.07.2016, and the applicant has been summoned to stand his trial by the Magistrate vide order dated 02.06.2017 passed after rejecting the final report. The applicant has been remanded to custody

¶8

pursuant to the process issued, on 23.10.2018, and is in jail ever since.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has emphatically submitted that the present case based on a consistent account of the prosecutrix, in her various statements across investigation, is no more than a device to somehow bargain her son's freedom in the case brought by the applicant's wife against him on charges of rape, which have since been found to be true and the prosecutrix's son convicted.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. have 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 a definite background forthcoming to serve as a motive for the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the applicant, the fact that the prosecutrix's son has been reported to the police by the applicant's wife on a charge of rape, which has been found to be vindicated during investigation, and the subsequent trial has led to his conviction, the fact that the FIR has been brought at a point of time soon after registration of the case against the prosecutrix's son by the applicant's wife, the fact that apart from the statement of the prosecutrix, there is no corroborative medical evidence to make out a case prima facie , 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, Muqeem , in Complaint Case no.6445 of 2016, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Tanda, District Rampur, 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

¶18

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 also made clear that anything said in this order will not influence the trial court in arriving at its independent conclusions based on evidence recorded during the trial.

¶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

Order Date :- 17.1.2019 Anoop

Muqeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muqeem 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

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.

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Santram @ Baihana Chamar Vs State of U.P.