Dismissed

Manju @ Amit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2021BAIL/10683/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application in a rape case under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The applicant argued for bail based on new witness statements and medical evidence. The court held that these were not additional grounds as similar issues were canvassed earlier, and no case for bail existed given the heinous nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected for any reason.

Manju @ Amit Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10683 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Manju @ Amit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yadvendra Singh,Anil Kumar Mishra,Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Manju @ Amit, in Case Crime No. 330 of 2017, under Sections- 376, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Dehat, DistrictSaharanpur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the additional ground for this second bail application is statement of Sulochna, who happens to be next door neighbour of prosecutrix, wherein, she has denied about this occurrence; the second one is Premwati, she is aunt of prosecutrix, she has also not supported the case of of prosecution; applicant is languishing in jail since long i.e 24.10.2017 and in medical evidence, there is no support of rape; there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶7

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed.

¶8

Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through the order of rejection of first bail application, it is apparent that entire argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant was considered at the time of first bail application with regard to rape or medical support of rape; it is not an additional ground; the only ground is statement of Sulochna and Premwati but the prosecurtrix in her testimony recorded before trial Court is fully intact.

¶9

Considering all above facts and circumstances, heinousness of offence of rape, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, no case for bail is made out.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶11

However trial is to be expedited and is to be concluded at an earliest strictly in accordance with provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Kamarjahan

Manju @ Amit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju @ Amit 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

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anand Vs State of U.P.

Kunnu Yadav @ Navneet Yadav and 2 others Vs State of Up.

Mohammad Azad Vs State of U.P.

Monu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P.