Allowed

Mohit Singh @ Mukteshwar v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2022/1337/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal appeal against rejection of bail. The Court held that prima facie evidence showed the prosecutrix was a consenting party who travelled voluntarily. Bail was granted with specific conditions to ensure presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail quashed; accused appellant released on bond with two sureties and specific conditions of appearance and undertaking.

Mohit Singh @ Mukteshwar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1337 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Mohit Singh @ Mukteshwar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Ramakar Shukla,Alok Kirti Mishra,Dharmesh Kr Dwivedi

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act has been preferred against the order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur whereby Application No.1777 of 2021 filed by the accused-appellant, seeking bail in FIR No.0119 of 2021, under Sections 366, 376, 504 and 506 IPC read with Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, lodged at Police Station Munshiganj, District Amethi has been rejected.

¶8

As per FIR, the accused-appellant on 30.04.2021, at around 10 a.m. enticed away the prosecutrix and took her to Musafirkhana and thereafter from Musafirkhana to Kanapur; in Kanpur the accused-appellant raped the prosecutrix; when this came to knowledge of family members of the accused-applicant, they produced them before the police; the prosecutrix was handed over to complainant, father of the prosecutrix.

¶9

The prosecutrix was medically examined; no internal/external injury was noted on any part of her body; her radiological age was determined to be 18 years; the prosecutrix, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, has supported the prosecution case; in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix has said that she was knowing the accused-appellant for the last two years; they used to speak each other over telephone; the accused-appellant promised her that if she would go with him, he would marry her; believing in promise made by the accusedappellant the prosecutrix went with the accused-appellant to Kanpur where the accused-appellant forcibly established physical relation with her; she stayed with the accused-appellant for one day and then his brother and other family members came there and brought back and produced them before the police.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the prosecutrix was a consenting party; she went by public transport from Musafirkhana to Kanpur and stayed with the accused-applicant for one day; if the prosecutrix was not a consenting party, she would have raised alarm; it is not case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix went with the accusedappellant under pressure, threat to her life or any other threat; from this fact, it is evident that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and a consensual act has been given colour of the crime in misuse of process of the Court. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has not considered the fats and circumstances of the case and, in a cursory manner rejected the bail application of the accused-appellant. It is further submitted that the accused-appellant is languishing in jail since 29.05.2021 and considering the aforesaid, the accused-appellant is entitled to be

¶11

released on bail and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be quashed, being unsustainable.

¶12

Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant to oppose this appeal. However, Mr. Ranvijay Singh, learned AGA, has opposed the appeal and supported the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act. It is submitted by the learned AGA that the prosecutrix stand has been consistent under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and, if her statement under Section 164 CrPC is believed, the accused-appellant has, prima facie, committed the offence.

¶13

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

As per the prosecution case itself the prosecutrix went with the accusedapplicant by public transport to Kanpur and stayed with him for one day. If she was not a consenting party, she would have not travelled all through from Musafirkhana to Kanpur and stayed with the accused-appellant. From this fact, it is evident that prima facie the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The learned trial Court has missed the point while rejecting the bail application of the accused-appellant.

¶15

Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find it appropriate to enlarge the accused-appellant on bail. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed.

¶16

Let appellant- Mohit Singh alias Mukteshwar , accused of above-mentioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) the appellant(s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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;

¶18

(ii). the appellant (s) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶19

(iii). in case, the appellant (s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) 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 of the Indian Penal Code; and

¶20

(iv) the appellant (s) 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 sufficient 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.6.2022 MVS/-

¶22

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.06.03 17:45:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohit Singh @ Mukteshwar v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Singh @ Mukteshwar v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

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

Rinkal Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Major-B.C. Vs Shilajeet @ Jilajeet

Ganesh Prabhakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. through its Secretary Home

Fuzail Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Kumar Yaday Vs State of U.P. and Others

Phoolchandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 4 Others