Dismissed

Bhagat Singh@ Ramu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023BAIL/49604/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the bail application by the accused, Bhagat Singh @ Ramu, in a rape and assault case. The court held that no grounds exist to presume false implication given the victim's injuries, corroboration by witnesses, and the serious nature of the charge. Consequently, bail was refused.

What did the court decide?

None. Bail application rejected; accused shall remain in custody during trial.

Bhagat Singh@ Ramu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49604 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bhagat Singh@ Ramu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Santosh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Bhagat Singh@ Ramu, who is involved in Case Crime No. 199 of 2022, under Sections 323, 506, 452, 376/511 I.P.C., Police Station Farah, District Mathura, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case in brief, victim herself lodged an F.I.R. on 13.06.2022 against Bhagat Singh @ Ramu (present applicant) and his brother Shivcharan alleging inter-alia that on 12.06.2022 at about 04:00 o'clock, when she was alone in her house, applicant Bhagat Singh @ Ramu barged into her house and forcibly tried to commit rape on her. On raising alarm, her aunt mother-in-law namely Kuwar Dei came there and started intervening, then applicant seeing himself trapped called his brother Shivcharan, who armed with lathi came there and assaulted her as well as her aunt mother-in-law and took the applicant with him. Information about the said incident was immediately given to the police by dialing no. 112.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the husband of the victim has borrowed Rs. 50,000/from the applicant assuring him that he will return the same within a period of two months. When the applicant mounted pressure upon the victim's husband to return his money, he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no material on

¶9

record that the information about the said incident was given to police by dialing no. 112. He next submits that the injuries of the injured are simple in nature, therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 08.09.2022 is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of prosecution case. He also pointed out that in this case, both the victim and her aunt mother-in-law have received injuries on their body and according to the opinion of doctor, same has been caused by blunt object, which corroborates the prosecution case. The information was given to the police by dialing no. 112, on which police reached at the spot and directed the victim to lodge an F.I.R. in the matter thereafter F.I.R. has been lodged. Learned counsel for the informant also pointed out that there are several independent witnesses of the incident namely Smt. Krishna, Smt. Malti, Smt. Rajendri and Smt. Vidya Devi who, in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., supported the prosecution case. The offence is serious in nature.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute that the information about the incident was immediately the information was given to the police by dialing no. 112. The victim as well as her aunt mother-in-law have received injuries and they, in their statement have also supported the prosecution case and the said incident was also witnessed by the independent witnesses. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant with regard to borrowing an amount of Rs. 50,000/by the husband of the victim from the applicant is concerned, there is no material on record. As on date in the light of injury reports of the victim and her aunt mother-in-law, I do not find any good ground to presume the false implication of the applicant and to disbelieve the statement of the victim, her aunt mother-in-law and other independent witnesses.

¶12

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of

¶13

the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶16

However the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Saurabh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhagat Singh@ Ramu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagat Singh@ Ramu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Ankit @ Safi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krashanveer Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sallan Maulana Vs State of U.P.

Shivdhakad @ Sudhakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P.