Dismissed

Ramjanam @ Majhi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2023CRLA/10099/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected the criminal appeal filed by Ramjanam @ Majhi against the rejection of his second bail application. The Court held that since the trial is at an advanced stage, no ground exists to enlarge the appellant on bail, upholding the impugned order. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of bail application upheld; Trial court directed to conclude trial within six months.

Ramjanam @ Majhi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:114234

¶2

Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10099 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Ramjanam @ Majhi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar,Dinesh Yadav,Mahesh Kumar Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pradeep Chauhan,Shiva Kant Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act has been filed against the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh whereby the learned Judge rejected the second bail application moved on behalf of the appellant in Bail Application No. 4211 of 2022 (Ramjanam @ Majhi vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2021, under Sections 323, 506, 376, 328, 394 I.P.C., Section 67A Information Technology Act and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh.

¶8

Earlier, the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 5973 of 2021.

¶9

In short compass, the facts of the case are that the FIR has been lodged by the victim herself on 25.09.2021 against the appellant inter-alia with the allegations that since there existed some dispute of the victim with her husband, she used to earn her livelihood by doing household work. On the fateful day, when the victim was returning home by purchasing vegetables, on the way, the appellant met her and on the pretext of extending help to her, took her to a room, where he has given her cold drink and on consuming the same, she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found her clothes here and there. On enquiry, the appellant has disclosed that

¶10

he has made her obscene video and threatened her to make it viral and on the basis thereof he used to make physical relations with her for the last about ten months. The FIR further discloses that on 22.09.2021, the appellant came to the room of the victim and committed Marpeet with her and snatched her Mangal Sutra, ear ring, a gold locket and her mobile.

¶11

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been languishing in jail since 01.10.2021 but till date, his trial has not been concluded, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that before the trial court, all the prosecution witnesses of the fact have been examined and except one prosecution witness, all other formal witnesses have also been examined.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that out of seven prosecution witnesses, five prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial court. The trial of the appellant is proceeding which is at the advanced stage, therefore, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the appellant on bail at this advanced stage of the trial.

¶14

Accordingly, the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh is upheld. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

However considering the detention period of the appellant, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months' from the date of production of a copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶16

Order Date :- 24.5.2023 Saurabh

¶17

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

Ramjanam @ Majhi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjanam @ Majhi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Malik Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Siyaram Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others