Allowed

Mamta Hansda @ Mamisha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023BAILC/10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court cancelled bail of an accused in a heinous crime involving rape of a minor daughter and IPC offences. Despite broad waiver by the informant, the court ordered re-arrest due to serious threats made by the accused against the victim and her counsel.

What did the court decide?

Bail application of O.P. No. 2 cancelled, impugned order set aside, directed to be taken in judicial custody forthwith.

Mamta Hansda @ Mamisha Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 10 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mamta Hansda @ Mamisha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Ranjan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Akhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶6

This bail cancellation has been filed by the informant-applicant as well as victim of this case with a prayer to cancel the bail application of O.P. No. 2 Rajesh @ Habibulla who has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 10.10.2022 passed by another bench of this court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 39407 of 2022. In the present case the O.P. No. 2 was named in the FIR which was lodged as case crime No. 154 of 2022, under sections 376, 377, 323, 342, 506 IPC, section 5/6 POCSO Act and section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S. Kampiarganj, District Gorakhpur. The O.P. No. 2 is a criminal person and committed heinous crime and when he was under custody of police, he came to attend the court proceeding in court below, then given threatening to the counsel of the applicant as well as to the applicant. Thereafter, after releasing from the jail O.P. No. 2 again given threatening to applicant when she came to attend court on 5.12.2022 then the applicant has given a letter to S.S.P. Gorakhpur and also lodged the FIR against O.P. No. 2 as Case Crime No. 1066 of 2022, under sections 504, 506 IPC at P.S. Cantt, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant-victim for her livelihood went to Vishakhapattanam in the year 2012 where she met with O.P. No. 2 and developed friendship and solemnized marriage in a temple. The applicant-victim was already married, having children but divorce was taken place with the with mutual understanding with her earlier husband. After some time she came to know that her husband in not a Hindu but a Muslim. But due to social status she kept mum, the O.P. No. 2 made pressure upon her to adopt muslim religion, she also accepted the same under pressure and slowly slowly the O.P. No. 2 took away from her Rs. 12 lacs and also committed rape with her minor daughter namely Basudha Hansda and left them and went to his native place. The

¶8

victim went at his residence where she found that O.P. No. 2 is already married and O.P. No. 2 alongwith his wife committed marpeet with her.

¶9

In reply of the above contention learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that O.P. No. 2 has not misused the liberty of bail, which has been rightly been granted on bail by the court below. Learned counsel next submits that the allegations levelled against the O.P. No. 2 is false and baseless.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has also stated that O.P. No. 2 and is earlier wife are threatening the applicant and has also supported the contention advanced by learned counsel counsel for the applicant, therefore, the bail application of the O.P. No. 2 may be cancelled.

¶11

Having considered the submissions raised by the counsel for the applicant and the objections raised by learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State, gravity and severity of the offence, I am of the view that the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 is liable to be cancelled.

¶12

Accordingly, prayer for bail cancellation is allowed and the order impugned dated 10.10.2022 is set aside.

¶13

The learned Court below is directed to take the opposite party no.2 in judicial custody and lodge him to jail forthwith.

¶14

Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 RPD

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mamta Hansda @ Mamisha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Hansda @ Mamisha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Mulayam Yadav @ Surendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Tufail @ Intejar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Farukh Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P.

Amarjeet Yadav Vs State of U.P.