Allowed

Monu Sharma @ Ritik v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2021BAIL/23570/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding charges of enticement, insult, and sexual assault, the Single Judge allowed bail. The Court noted the parties were married voluntarily by the prosecutrix and found no material indicating tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, one of whom must be a family member.

Monu Sharma @ Ritik Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23570 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Monu Sharma @ Ritik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Chaubey,Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Monu Sharma @ Ritik, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 126 of 2019, under Sections 366, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad.

¶7

The First Information Report of the present case has been lodged by Umesh Chandra the father of the prosecutrix under Sections 366, 504 IPC on 12.05.2019 naming the applicant and five other co-accused persons alleging therein that on 09.05.20219 at about 8:00-9:00 pm, his daughter has been enticed away by the accused persons. She has been seen to be taken away by them. He went to the house of the applicant Monu to inquire about his daughter after which he was abused and was threatened. His daughter is aged about 19 years.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per the First Information Report itself, the prosecutrix is aged about 19 years and even as per the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad dated 26.09.2019 she has been opined to be about 20 years. It is argued that the prosecutrix although in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has named the applicant and other accused persons and has stated that the applicant has sexually assaulted her but the same is false and incorrect. It is argued that the prosecutrix remained with the applicant for about five months without any resistance whatsoever. As per the First Information Report, she was enticed away by the applicant on 09.05.2019 after which

¶9

she was recovered on 23.09.2019 and as such she was in the company of the applicant for about five months without any resistance whatsoever.

¶10

It is further argued that the prosecutrix and the applicant have solemnized their marriage in Arya Samaj Krishna Nagar, Prayag on 11.06.2019 for which a certificate has been issued for the same. It is further argued that a criminal writ being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16900 of 2019 (Smt. Mona Rawat and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) was filed before this Court in which the prosecutrix had appeared before the Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.06.2019 was pleased to stay the arrest of the petitioners till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In the said order, it is specifically mentioned that the prosecutrix is present before the Court and she has stated that she had married with the second petitioner therein who is the applicant herein out of her own free will and without any coercion or undue influence.

¶11

Learned counsel has further argued that during investigation Sections 376 and 506 IPC has been added in the present case. The implication of the applicant is false. It is further argued that the applicant is although reported to be involved in six other cases but in all the said cases, he is on bail. Para 15 of the affidavit has been placed as disclosure and explanation to the said criminal history. It is argued that the present case would be a case of a different nature as the same was the case of relationship and love affair between the parties. The applicant is in jail since 10.01.2020.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the prosecutrix has in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. named the applicant and has alleged that she has been kept in confinement by him and there was sexual assault on her. It is argued that the applicant has a criminal history, although the factum of disclosure of the same and explanation as given in para 15, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State. Further, learned counsels could not dispute the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the prosecutrix is a major girl aged about 19 years as per the First information Report. She has solemnized marriage with the applicant. She had appeared before the Court in writ petition in which she stated that she has married the applicant out of her own sweet will without any coercion or threat.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Monu Sharma @ Ritik , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶20

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶23

verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 9.12.2021 M. ARIF

¶26

Digitally signed by Justice Samit Gopal Date: 2021.12.10 17:13:05 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monu Sharma @ Ritik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu Sharma @ Ritik 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Mongia Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Nazim Vs State of U.P.

Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Chaubey Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Ram Dular Vishwakrma @ Ashok Vishwakrma Vs State of U.P. and Another