Dismissed

Mohanlal @ Ram Chandra @ Om Prakash v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023CRLA/5772/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a bail application under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. Upholding the impugned order, the court held that there was no ground to interfere given the existence of a prima facie case and available evidence against the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal against the rejection of bail is dismissed.

Mohanlal @ Ram Chandra @ Om Prakash Vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5772 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Mohanlal @ Ram Chandra @ Om Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Shanker Malviya,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Braham Singh,Sushil Kumar Tewari

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Amroha, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appellant's Bail Application No. 1106 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 248 of 2019, under Sections 302, 366 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Amroha, District Amroha.

¶7

The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Chhatrapal Singh lodged the First Information Report dated 09.05.2019 to the effect that about 10 days earlier one Chandrasen had got his house, situated at Mohalla Shastri Nagar Amroha, rented to the appellantaccused. There, the appellant was living with his daughter Seema, aged 21-22 years. Chandrasen told the informant that his marriage is fixed with Seema. On 09.05.2019 at 3 p.m. Chandrasen called the informant on his mobile phone and asked him to come at his house at Shastri Nagar. When the informant reached at his house Chandrasen told him that at 2 am he had talk with Seema's father but in the morning at 9 am, both, Seema and her father's mobiles

¶8

are switched off. The house was locked from outside. When the informant and Chandrasen entered into the house, breaking the lock, they found that Seema's throat was slit and she was lying dead. He found that a sharp aged weapon ( Ganasa ) was also lying on the ground in the room. Her father, accused-appellant had left the house. The FIR was lodged against the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. on the basis of suspicion. On 10.05.2019 postmortem of the deceased Seema was done. The accused-appellant was arrested on 17.05.2019 and on his pointing out a blood stained sharp aged weapon ( Ganasa) was recovered behind Vasudev Mandir situated in Stastri Nagar, Amroha. Chandrasen in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that his engagement ceremony with the deceased was performed. He would give pocket money to the deceased. He stated that the appellant was a drunker and would extract money from the deceased. During investigation it was found that the appellant-accused had enticed away the victim from the house of her mother situated in village Rafatpur, Budaun for which her mother Munni Devi w/o Prem Pal Jatav had lodged an FIR under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. During investigation it was found that about one year back appellantaccused had enticed away the daughter of Munni Devi and, therefore, on the basis of written report dated 24.05.2019 of Munni Devi Section 366 and 3(2)5 of SC/ST act was added.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence and he has been made accused on basis of suspicion. It is also submitted that the alleged recovery of weapon of offence is not genuine, it is planted by the Police. It has also been submitted that the offence was committed by Chandrasen, as the victim did

¶10

not agree to marry him.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant-accused was living with the victim in the tenanted house of the informant. It is submitted that the room, from where the dead body of the victim was recovered, was locked from outside. It is stated that the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence, locking the door from outside, after committing murder of the victim whom he had enticed away from her mother, Munni Devi. It is also submitted that the appellant was arrested and on his pointing out, the weapon used in the offence i.e. a sharp edged weapon ( Ganasa ), was recovered. It is submitted that the mother of the victim, Munni Devi has also lodged an FIR against the appellant regarding elopement of her daughter.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, statement of witnesses, recovery memo of the weapon used in the offence, the fact that soon before the murder, the appellant resided with the victim/deceased, the fact that the victim's mother lodged FIR against the appellant for elopement of her daughter, but without commenting on the merit of the case, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.07.2019. Hence, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Brijesh Maurya

¶15

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

Mohanlal @ Ram Chandra @ Om Prakash v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanlal @ Ram Chandra @ Om Prakash v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Smt. Gunja Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Bablu Alias Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maya @ Sandhya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tapan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another