Allowed

Maniram Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2022/10067/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the accused in a case involving sections under IPC and POCSO Act, noting contradictions in the victim's statements and lack of medical evidence of injuries.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on execution of a personal bond and two sureties on conditions to not tamper with evidence and appear personally for crucial stages of trial.

Maniram Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10067 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Maniram Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Mani Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

As per ofÏce report dated 15.11.2021 notice has been served personally upon opposite party no.2 but today when the case is taken up in the revised list no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to press this bail application , therefore, this Court has no option except to decide the case finally.

¶6

Heard Shri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sudhir Kumar Upadhyaya, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The applicant, Maniram Rajbhar has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 70 of 2021, under Sections 376Gha (Ka),506,34 IPC and section 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to village party bandi. No such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place. The entire prosecution story is lodged with the intention to defame the image of the applicant and his entire family in the society.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the version of FIR made by the informant (mother of the victim) the applicant used to make physical relation with the victim for last five months. In the statement recorded under

¶10

section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim stated that only the applicant has made physical relation with her and when the applicant began to get off clothes of the victim coaccused Mintu ran away whereas in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that applicant and coaccused Mintu both have made physical relation with her. Thus there is vast contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also in the first information report. He further submits that as per the averments made in the FIR it appears that the parties are consenting parties.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the entire statements of the victim regarding allegation of rape got demolished after perusal of the medical report of the victim as the doctor opined therein that there is no external or internal injury found on the person of the victim nor there is any injury found on the private part of the victim nor there is any dead or live spermatozoa seen in the vaginal smear slide nor there is any sign of use of force, however final opinion was reserved pending FSL report and for the last one year the FSL report is not available with the investigating ofÏcer. The radiological age of the victim was between 17-18 years. Thus she is major and she knew her consequences very well.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the actual fact behind the present story is that the parents of the victim wants to solemnize the marriage of the victim with applicant and were creating pressure but the parents of the applicant were not ready for the said marriage, therefore, the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case only with the intention to create pressure for solemnizing the marriage with the victim.

¶13

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the

¶14

Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 27.5.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶15

Learned AGA while opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the applicant is involved in heinous crime hence the bail application may b e rejected . After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that there is a vast contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also in the version of the first information report. The allegation of rape made by the victim against the applicant got demolished after perusal of the medical report of the victim as the doctor opined therein that there is no external or internal injury found on the person of the victim nor there is any injury found on the private part of the victim nor there is any dead or live spermatozoa seen nor there is any sign of use of force. The radiological age of the victim was between 17-18 years at the time of alleged incident. Thus she is major and she knew

¶16

her consequences very well. As per the averments made in the FIR it appears that the parties are consenting parties and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant, Maniram Rajbhar involved in Case Crime No. 70 of 2021, under Sections 376Gha (Ka),506,34 IPC and section 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambedkar Nagar be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶19

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶21

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial

¶24

court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶26

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶27

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶28

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶29

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶30

Order Date : - 29.7.2022

¶31

GSY

¶32

Digitally signed by GULAB Date: 2022.08.03 12:09:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maniram Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniram Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Ram Achal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dhaniram Vs State of U.P.

Tasleem Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Devendra Awasthi Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Ibrahim Second Bail Application Vs State of U.P.

Fayanath Yadav S/O Late Devdutt Yadav (Fourth Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.