Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Mangru Saroj vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 July, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21407 of 2021 Applicant :- Mangru Saroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Priyavrat Tripathi
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by accused-applicant, Mangru Saroj, in Case Crime No. 3 of 2020, under Sections-376-D, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 26.01.2020; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail. This occurrence was said to be of 06.07.2019 and report was got lodged after six months on 01.01.2020 by way of moving an application before the U.P. State Women Commission, Lucknow, whereas, a case of sexual assault and rape was got registered against Surya Pratap Singh son of present informant as Case Crime Number 689 of 2019 under Sections 376, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (V) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989, at Police Station-Nawabganj, upon report of Malti Devi wife of applicant and this false implication is a counterblast of the same. Applicant is member of schedule caste community, whereas, informant is of upper caste and being very poor and vulnerable section of society the wife of applicant was subjected to rape by Surya Pratap Singh, for which above case crime number was got registered after a long exercise because the same was not being registered under influence of the accused then after present false implication was made with above accusation. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that the delay in lodging report was owing to moving an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.; the previous report being said to be lodged is also with delay; prosecutrix, who is mother of three child, will never implicate for such offence of rape; this rape was committed in response to above lodged First Information Report, but could not oppose this fact that the applicant is of no criminal antecedent.
Having heard and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that report was delayed by six months hence, no question of any medical support may arise; gang rape was said to be committed by prosecutrix, but no other co-accused was ascertained; there is a previous accusation for offence of rape coupled with offences under Scheduled Cast and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 against Surya Pratap Singh son of present informant.
Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Mangru Saroj, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
5. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
6. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by counsel of the party concerned.
7. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad, and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Deepak/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mangru Saroj vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 July, 2021
Judges
  • Ram Krishna Gautam
Advocates
  • Dinesh Kumar Maurya