Allowed

Ram Mohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2024/12050/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Ram Mohit in a case under Section 376 IPC. The Court considered arguments regarding inordinate delay in FIR, matrimonial dispute context, and lack of prior criminal record. The High Court allowed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Ram Mohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76040

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12050 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Mohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Saran Awasthi,Abhishek Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Saran Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Learned AGA has informed that notice has been served upon the complainant on 11.11.2024 but no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant/ informant.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 24.09.2024 in Case Crime/FIR No.441 of 2024, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station – Safdarganj, District – Barabanki.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the date of incident is indicated as 13.10.2021 but the FIR has been lodged on 20.09.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay properly. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.8 of the bail application, which is an application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki for restitution of conjugal rights whereby the present applicant has sought decree from the Court concerned against his wife, who is informant herein, to direct her to live with him and discharge the matrimonial obligations. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant and informant got married on 13.10.2021 but she had gone to her maternal house in the month of June, 2023, since then, she has not returned back. In the aforesaid case, the date has been fixed for today, therefore, learned counsel has stated that the entire prosecution story so narrated in the FIR is false and misconceived. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Further, the applicant

¶10

undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that there is inordinate delay of about three years in lodging the FIR; the applicant and the prosecutrix are alleged to be husband and wife, who got married in the year 2021; on some dispute, the prosecutrix left for her maternal house in the month of June, 2023, thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights; the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

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

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶19

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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.].

¶22

Order Date :- 19.11.2024 RBS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Mohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jay Shankar @ Mangal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Abhinav Omar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Nitin Rana @ Nitin Bharti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vasishtha Chandra Yadav and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 4 Others