Allowed

Ram Mohan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023/1809/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to Ram Mohan in a rape case involving Sections 376-D, 342, and 506 IPC. The court noted discrepancies in the victim's statements, medical report findings of no injury, and the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Ram Mohan on bail on furnishing a bond and two sureties under specific conditions.

Ram Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1809 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Mohan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Mishra,Malti Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 148 of 2022, under Sections 376-D, 342, 506 IPC, Police Station Sursha, District Hardoi.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 22.04.2022, against the applicant, one Vivek and Dhani Ram, in furtherance of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed on 15.12.2022, alleging that all the accused persons are related to the informant from the side of her parents. On 14.11.2021 at about 11.30 pm, the applicant called the informant out of her house by making a phone call and as soon as she came out, the applicant and co-accused Dhani Ram made her sit on a motorcycle. The other co-accused was riding another motorcycle. They took her to an unknown place and the applicant and co-accused Vivek raped her while the other coaccused Dhani Ram was standing there with a pistol. She further stated that the accused persons robed her jewelry and threatened her. They left her at Bilgram at about 04.00 am on 16.11.2021.

¶9

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that the other two co-accused persons had committed a misdeed with her and she did not allege commission of rape by the applicant. In the medico legal examination report of the informant, no injury or sign of use of force has been found and no definite opinion regarding any sexual assault has been given. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that the applicant and Vivek had raped her and the other co-accused Dhani Ram had not raped her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the coaccused Vivek has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 13.02.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1468 of 2023.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant is a married lady; that she has stated that the accused persons are related to her from the side of her parents; that there are discrepancies in the version of the informant in the FIR and her statements recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and that co-accused Vivek has already been granted bail, coupled with the facts that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 06.08.2022 and without making any observation which may affect the merit of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Ram Mohan be released on bail in Case Crime No. 148 of 2022, under Sections 376-D, 342, 506 IPC, Police Station Sursha, District Hardoi on furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject o following conditions:-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶16

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.4.2023

¶19

Pradeep/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Mohan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mohan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

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

Mahendra Mishra and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rupesh Vs State of U.P.

Jane Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Navjot Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sangeeta @ Sangeeta Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.