Manjeet Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 75

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51747 of 2022

Applicant :- Manjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh,Amit Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 341 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, police station Geeda, district Gorakhpur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, in brief, victim lodged a first information report on 27.8.2022 against the applicant alleging inter alia that her husband had gone outside for the purpose of business and during this period applicant started visiting her house and one day by administering something, committed rape one her and also made video.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in the FIR, no date and time has been disclosed by the victim and later on for the first time, the date of incident has been mentioned as 11.7.2022 at the time of her medical examination, but when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has disclosed the date of incident as 09.7.2022 and 27.9.2022, whereas her husband in his statement has mentioned the date of incident as 27.8.2022. It is also submitted that though in the FIR, there is allegation of making video of the victim, whereas during investigation no such video has been collected by the investigating ofÏcer. It is also submitted that though the victim is married lady, but she was not sexually satisfied with her husband, therefore, she was insisting the applicant, who is the son of her maid servant for making physical relation with her and on refusal, he has falsely been

¶9

implicated in this case. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.8.2022 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not dispute the factum of the case with regard to different dates of incident as noted above.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that after culmination of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted only under Section 376 and 506 IPC as no such video as alleged in the FIR has been recovered during investigation. Non-disclosure of date of incident in the FIR and subsequently during investigation disclosing different dates of incident indicates the possibility of false implication of the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Manjeet be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶15

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

¶16

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶18

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 Ishrat

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manjeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahaj Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Karan Peter Masih Vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home

Dharmpal Vs State of U.P.

Arun @ Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Adesh Alias Sintu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Koshindar Vs State of U.P.