Anticipatory bail application rejected for applicant no.1 Monu in a gang rape case but granted to co-applicants Jony and Soniya. Monu held to merit; others released on bonds with conditions.
Bail rejected for Monu. Bail granted to Jony and Soniya subject to personal bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties and standard conditions.
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. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3952 of 2020
Applicant :- Monu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prayogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri P. P.Singh,, learned counsel for the applicants, Km. Meena, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the victim girl is said to have been enticed away by all the applicants who are two brothers and one sister respectively. It is submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case which is mainly against the applicant no.1, namely, Monu and the applicant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Jony and Sonia have been roped in because of relationship with the applicant no.1. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not yet been recorded. The medical examination of the victim could not be conducted as the victim herself denied for the same. The applicants have no other reported criminal antecedents, the said fact has been mentioned in paragraph no.15 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that as pr the F.I.R. the victim is a minor girl aged about 17 years.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant no.1, namely, Monu involved in Case Crime No.391 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application on behalf of applicant no.1,namely, Monu is hereby rejected .
So far as applicant nos.2 & 3, namely, Jony & Soniya are concerned, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that they have no criminal antecedents, they are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicant nos.nos.2 & 3, namely, Jony & Soniya involved in Case Crime No.391 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing personal bonds of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) the applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.
The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 9.7.2020 NS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant no.1 Monu involved in gang rape charges.
Whether antecedents and nature of accusation justify refusal of anticipatory bail to applicant no.1.
Whether applicant nos.2 and 3 are entitled to anticipatory bail considering their lack of criminal antecedents.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Monu
Jony and Soniya
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
