Allahabad High Court
Monti @ Amit vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20953 of 2019
Applicant :- Monti @ Amit
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of this application.
Contention in brief is that in this case there is not a single evidence indicating that the applicant ever indulged in the commission of the offence in question, except bald statement of the informant that too under circumstance cannot be believed to be natural, but the same is outcome of deliberation. The entirety of the case shows that except the applicant the other co- accused- say- Kaushal Yadav, Mohit Yadav and others were involved in blackmailing the victim by snapping certain photographs of the applicant in company with the deceased. Except this circumstance and piece of evidence, nothing concrete emerges against the applicant. It is not a case that the applicant ever indulged in blackmailing due to which she (deceased) committed suicide. He further submits that the other co- accused of this case have been admitted to bail by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that in this case the very circumstances itself are self- speaking and these circumstances being ostensible require no explanation. These circumstances are axiomatic. Complicity of the applicant with the victim is very much gathered from the initial stage of this case. Specific statement has been given by the father of the deceased that he was told by his daughter regarding molestation being done to her. Therefore, these initial stages cannot be negatived by subsequent act of others that they insisted for blackmailing due to which death occurred. The report itself was lodged only after the death of the victim, inter alia, under Section 306 IPC. The date of birth of the victim is 5.1.2000, as per the academic record, and it cannot be said that the victim was major and she under circumstances was a consenting party. In so far as the bail of the other co- accused is concerned, the same cannot be equated with the role and the allegations made against the present applicant, but their role is entirely different and their appearance in the case is a subsequent development of the case and is later stage of the case but allegations are certain that the offence of rape was committed by the applicant regarding which the testimony is clinching.
After hearing the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and the reply by the learned A.G.A. and upon perusal of the various documents annexed with the present bail application and also looking to the allegations made in the FIR, and considering the gravity of the offence, no good ground is made out for bail.
Accordingly, this bail application is rejected at this stage.
The observation so made in the body of this order shall not prejudice proceeding of the trial court while deciding the case on merit.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Raj
