Dismissed¶¶13

Ram Briksha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025BAIL/3430/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC bail rejected 5.2.2025, Sanjay Kumar Singh J.; Criminal Misc. Bail Appln 3430/2025; applicant Ram Briksha; Case Crime No. 177 of 2024; Sections 376(2)l and 506 IPC; PS Khesraha, District Siddharth Nagar; rape of 19-year-old mentally retarded victim causing pregnancy; FIR 06.09.2024; custody since 11.09.2024; ultrasound 10.09.2024 showing 28 weeks pregnancy; DNA samples submitted to laboratory 18.09.2024; alleged false implication over money dispute and delayed FIR; offence heinous; innocence not adjudicable pre-trial; no good ground for release.

What did the court decide?

The court determined that the offence is heinous in nature: it is a case of rape on a mentally retarded girl, on account of which she became pregnant, and prosecution case is prima facie corroborated from the ultrasound report of the victim. ¶¶11

Ram Briksha vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Ram Briksha, accused in Case Crime No. 177 of 2024 under Sections 376(2)l and 506 I.P.C. for rape of a mentally retarded woman resulting in pregnancy, should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

¶¶6

Court's answer

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

On the submission that the applicant was falsely implicated over a money dispute, the court found no material on record to presume false implication.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

Innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre-trial stage.ratio¶¶11
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, submissions of the parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to the applicant and severity of punishment, the court found no good ground to release the applicant on bail and rejected the bail application at this stage.ratio¶¶12
Observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3430 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 64), decided 5.2.2025 by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. Applicant Ram Briksha, in custody since 11.09.2024, sought enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)l and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khesraha, District Siddharth Nagar, on the allegation that he forcefully raped the complainant's daughter (aged about 19 years, mentally retarded) about four-five months before the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant-mother on 06.09.2024, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. During investigation the victim supported the F.I.R. version; ultrasound done on 10.09.2024 showed 28 weeks pregnancy; D.N.A. samples of victim and accused were submitted to the laboratory on 18.09.2024. Applicant's counsel argued false implication over a money transaction dispute, lodging of the F.I.R. after 5-6 months, and absence of a medical certificate of unsound mind; learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail. The court held the offence heinous (rape on a mentally retarded girl resulting in pregnancy), found the prosecution case prima facie corroborated from the ultrasound report, found no material on record to presume false implication, observed that innocence cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, and, weighing gravity of offence, role assigned and severity of punishment, found no good ground for release; the bail application was rejected at this stage, with observations expressly confined to the bail issue and not affecting the merit of the trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19724

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3430 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Briksha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mujiburrahman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State.

¶6

2-By means of this bail application, applicant-Ram Briksha, who is involved in Case Crime No. 177 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)l and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khesraha, District Siddharth Nagar, seeks enlargement on bail.

¶7

3-As per prosecution case in brief, complainant who is mother of victim lodged an F.I.R. on 06.09.2024 alleging therein that her daughter who is aged about 19 years is mentally retarded. On 06.09.2024 while taking bath in the morning, she saw that her daughter's stomach was bloated. When she asked her daughter, she told that about four-five months ago, she had gone to throw cow dung in the field near the pond on the east side of the village. Ram Briksha, who was already present there, finding her alone raped her forcefully and threatened that if she tells anything about the incident, he would kill her. Out of fear, her daughter did not tell anyone about the incident.

¶8

4-It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant who is a married man aged about 48 years has been falsely implicated in this case with regard to a dispute of money transaction between the complainant and applicant. There is no medical certificate regarding unsound mind of the victim, which creates doubt about the prosecution case. F.I.R. has been lodged after lapse of 5-6 months' on the basis of false and concocted story in order to mount pressure upon the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant

¶9

that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.09.2024 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that victim has supported the F.I.R. version in her statement recorded during investigation. The ultrasound of victim was done on 10.09.2024, in which 28 weeks pregnancy was found. D.N.A. sample of the victim and accused were taken and submitted to the concerned laboratory on 18.09.2024. Considering the gravity of offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶11

6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per the prosecution case, it is case of rape on mentally retarded girl by the accused and on account of said rape, she has become pregnant as note above, offence is heinous in nature. So far as submission on behalf of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated is concerned, I do not find any material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant, whereas prosecution case is prima-facie corroborated from the ultrasound report of the victim. Innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage.

¶12

7-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

8-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶14

9-It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.2.2025/Saurabh

¶16

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

Ram Briksha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Briksha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pushpa Devi vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Irfan Siddiqui @ Mohd. Irfan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Sachivalya Lko. and 3 Others

Shamshad vs State of U.P.

Dilip Kumar vs State of U.P.

Subansa vs State of U.P.

Ragib and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others