Ram Prakash Pathak Alias Lal Maharaj Tantrik v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2024BAIL/6087/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 302, 376, and 452 IPC for rape causing death, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) rejected the prayer. The court noted the gruesome nature of the injuries and the psychopathic behavior, finding no reason to release the accused on bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously; the S.P. Bahraich is directed to ensure witness presence.

Ram Prakash Pathak Alias Lal Maharaj Tantrik Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52314

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6087 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Prakash Pathak Alias Lal Maharaj Tantrik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Mohan Sahai,Ram Charitra Pandey,Sandeep Yadav,Vikas Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

1 . Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

2 . The present application has been filed seeking bail by the applicant in FIR No.642 of 2022, under Sections 376, 452, 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich.

¶9

3 . In terms of the FIR registered on 07.11.2022 under Sections 376, 452 IPC, it was alleged that the informant was a resident of Bahraich and had met the applicant, who was practicing occult sciences, along with his sister on 04.11.2022. It was also alleged that the applicant had committed rape on the daughter of the informant and when he tried to apprehend, he ran away. It was alleged that as the condition of the daughter of the informant was very serious, she was admitted to the district hospital Bahraich and as the condition did not improve, she was referred to Lucknow, where she was treated in a private hospital and was referred back to the hospital at Bahriach, where she was being treated. Subsequently, the victim died during treatment.

¶10

4 . Before the death, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 08.11.2022, wherein she stated that she was unwell when the family members of the victim met with the applicant, who was practicing occult sciences and, the applicant suggested for certain Pooja to be done. It was also stated that liquor was also called for performing Pooja on 02.11.2022. Thereafter, the liquor was served as Prasad to the entire family members and the mother and the victim were taken in a room and thereafter, the victim was taken separately in a room and wrong was committed on her. Subsequently, when the victim started raising hue and cry, her mother came and the applicant ran away and thereafter, the victim was taken

¶11

to the hospital. In the statement before the medical authorities, the victim stated that on the pretext of occult sciences pooja, the deceased was taken by the applicant and after sending all the family members away, the applicant allegedly committed rape for the last three months. It was also stated that the applicant used to persuade to keep the child and when the informant and the victim did not agree, the applicant inserted his hand in the private part and took out the fetus and threw away, as a result whereof, the victim sustained excessive injuries on the private part with excessive bleeding. It was also stated that she was not aware about the age of the fetus, which was removed physically by the applicant.

¶12

5 . In the medical examination, it was observed that there was extensive multiple massive tear and depth of tear could not be assessed. The opinion was that there was extensive force used in the perineum and vaginal area. The postmortem report indicates the presence of as many as four injuries, which includes stitched wound 6cm long along with 5 stitches present on perineal region adjacent to vaginal opening at 6 O'clock position, where pus was also present in the wound. Two other injuries were observed on the left arm and one contusion was observed on the thigh. In the lungs, liver, splean and in both kidney multiple pus focci was also present. The cause of death ascertained as septicemia as a result of ante mortem injury. The viscera was also preserved for analysis.

¶13

6 . In the light of the aforesaid material, the Counsel for the applicant argues that the victim was suffering from miliary tuberculosis, which is an extreme form of tuberculosis, for which the victim was undergoing treatment and according to the applicant is also allegedly the cause of death. He demonstrates through a document that the victim was undergoing treatment since November, 2022 as is evident from the diagnostic report filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. He further draws my attention to the medical report dated 07.11.2022 where it was observed that the case of the victim was a follow up case of abortion and miliar tuberculosis and the victim is suffering from severe anemia. He further draws my attention to the medicolegal pathology report dated 08.11.2022 where the Urine Pregnancy Test (UPT) was conducted. He also argues that in the vaginal smear slides, no spermatozoa was seen alive or dead. He further draws my attention to the statement of the family of the victim made before the KGMU, Lucknow, wherein, it was stated that on the patient an induced abortion was done by a hot rod insured in to the vagina 12 days ago and the patient bled excessively. After drawing my attention to the said documents, the Counsel for the applicant argues that initially the FIR was registered for an offence under Section

¶14

376 read with Section 452 IPC and after the death of the victim, Section 302 IPC has been added. He further argues that the applicant is in custody since 09.12.2022 and has no criminal antecedents and even the charge has not been framed till date. He thus argues that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

7 . Learned A.G.A. strongly opposes the bail prayer by arguing that the applicant in the garb of occult science pooja raped the victim and thereafter, after insertion of hand took out the fetus, which resulted in excessive bleeding and also resulted in severe injuries which further caused septicemia and considering the gruesome nature of offence committed by the applicant, the bail application should be rejected. Learned A.G.A. however not denied the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 09.12.2022.

¶16

8 . Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima facie, from the perusal of the postmortem report and the statements, prima facie, it transpires that the victim was subjected to extreme physical torture by manually conducting the abortion, which resulted in substantial injuries to the victim including including loss of blood and thereafter leading to septicemia and resulting death. The manner in which, the applicant has inflected the wounds to the victim, shows the depraved state of mind of the applicant. The nature of the injuries inflicted in the postmortem report, make the offence extreme gruesome, to say the least the applicant appears to be a case of psychopath, who has treated the victim with most inhumane manner, which resulted into the death of the victim.

¶17

9 . I do not see any reason to leave such a psychopath on bail in the open society, as such, the bail application is rejected .

¶18

10 . However, the trial court is directed to ensure that the trial proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously.

¶19

11 . The S.P., Bahraich is directed to ensure the presence the witnesses before the trial court for recording their statements.

¶20

Order Date :- 31.7.2024

¶21

akverma

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prakash Pathak Alias Lal Maharaj Tantrik v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash Pathak Alias Lal Maharaj Tantrik v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

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

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rekha Devi Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Monu @ Mukaddar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Rajendra Mangta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Saroj Kumar Verma @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Ors.