Allowed

Mukesh @ Karpage v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023BAIL/57792/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an applicant charged with rape and other offences. The court found that despite the serious nature of the allegations, no independent witnesses supported the prosecution and the applicant posed no flight risk, necessitating his release on personal bond and surety.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding trial participation and witness safety.

Mukesh @ Karpage Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57792 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh @ Karpage Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Mukesh @ Karpage, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 165 of 2022, under Sections 376-D, 341, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Sheharamau North, District Pilibhit, during pendency of the trial before the court below.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report is based on false and fabricated facts. The accused/applicant is innocent who has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that there is no independent witness of the alleged offence. There was no spermatozoa, no internal and external injury has been found on the person of the victim. There is unexplained delay of lodging the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly contends that applicant is languishing in jail since 24.08.2022.

¶9

Contrary to this, the learned A.G.A argued that the victim is a widow belongs to SC/ST community. The victim has supported the prosecution version in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, hence application for bail be rejected. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but could not rebut the aforesaid facts and evidence.

¶10

This Court is of the view that three real brothers cannot rape a lady together, however, in this respect the learned A.G.A has informed that rest two brothers have

¶11

been found not guilty as the real brothers Priyanshu and Pankaj had not been participated. The charge-sheet has been submitted only against the Accused - Mukesh @ Karpage.

¶12

From the evidence, available on record, it transpires that after the death of Ravindra – husband of the victim, she came into contact of accused and they started living together. The victim wanted to marry with the accused, but after sometimes when the applicant denied/refused marrying with the victim, this F.I.R has been lodged. Both the victim and the accused are adult person. As per statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the matter was seriously taken up by the victim only when it came to the knowledge of her sister-in-law. The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2022. There is no criminal history of the applicant, there are no independent witnesses of the offence. There is no likelihood of tempering the evidence or absconding of the applicant. His further submission is that in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicant will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

¶13

Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the nature of offence, evidence regarding the complicity of applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The bail application is, thus, allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Mukesh @ Karpage, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial;

¶16

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment;

¶17

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail;

¶18

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 dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, in case the witnesses are present in court;

¶20

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 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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

It is made clear that the trial of the aforesaid case shall be conducted without being influenced by any observation made herein above which are confined to the disposal of the instant application for bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 5.4.2023 .

¶24

Vinod.

¶25

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

Mukesh @ Karpage v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh @ Karpage 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

Kapil Suneja Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Ram Barai Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manju Devi Vs State of U.P.

Baburam Vs State of U.P.

Mahmood Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others