SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 5649

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DINESH KUMAR @ DINESH PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BAIL/30399/2022



In cases involving serious offences against vulnerable victims, the court may be less inclined to grant bail, especially when there is evidence implicating the accused.

Headnote:

BAIL - SECTION 376(2)(I) IPC - REJECTION - SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE - VICTIM MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED - WITNESS STATEMENT - NO GROUNDS FOR BAIL

Fact of the Case:

The applicant was arrested and charged under Section 376(2)(I) IPC for allegedly raping a mentally and physically challenged victim. The applicant filed a bail application, arguing that the FIR was based on false allegations and that he was innocent.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the bail application, holding that the seriousness of the offence, the victim's vulnerability, and the presence of a witness statement implicating the applicant did not provide sufficient grounds for bail.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail in a case of alleged rape of a mentally and physically challenged victim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the presence of a witness statement implicating the applicant in reaching its decision.

Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30399

of 2022

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Prasad

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushlendra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

Heard Sri Kaushlendra, learned counsel for the

applicant, Sri Ravi Prakash Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the entire record.

The instant application for bail has been moved on

behalf of the applicant, Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh

Prasad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in

F.I.R./Case Crime No.71 of 2022, under Sections 376(2)

(I) I.P.C., Police Station Manda, District Prayagraj, during

pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that

the first information report is based on false and

fabricated facts. The accused/applicant is innocent who

has been falsely implicated in this case.

His further submission is that the alleged date of

incident being festival of Holi, it was not possible for

accused/ applicant to have escorted the victim to the

alleged place of occurrence in order to commit rape.

His next submission is that the victim is mentally and

physically challenged, therefore, nothing against the

applicant can also be deciphered from her statement.

His further submission is that it is alleged that the

applicant has taken the victim to a public place like

shop. However, strangely, no public witness saw the

applicant taking away the victim or committing rape

upon her.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted

that the accused/applicant is languishing in jail since

18.03.2022 who has no previous criminal history.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently

opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that

the accused/ applicant has committed a heinous

offence of committing rape upon the victim who is

mentally and physically challenged. The victim was not

able to defend herself. Therefore, having regard to the

seriousness nature of offence, the applicant does not

deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant,

learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record,

it transpires that a first information report came to be

lodged by the first informant, the father of the victim.

The victim is sated to be mentally and physically

challenged. It also appears that a witness, Mahendra

Kumar, who, in his statement recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C., has stated to have seen the applicant

committing rape upon the victim who escape from the

place of occurrence. There is nothing on record to

suggest that this witness has any reason or motive to

falsely implicate the applicant.

Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of

this case, seriousness of offence, evidence regarding

the complicity of applicant and having regard to the fact

that the victim is stated to be mentally and physically

challenged and this incident has been witnessed by a

witness, Mahendra Kumar while the accused/ applicant

was committing rape upon the victim, this Court, at this

stage, does not find any ground to enlarge the applicant

on bail.

Accordingly, the instant applicant for bail is rejected.

However, keeping in view the fact that the applicant is

languishing in jail since 18.02.2022, the learned trial

court concerned is directed to proceed with the trial and

conclude the same expeditiously and preferably within

a period of one year from the date of production of

certified copy of this order, without granting any

unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there

is no other legal impediment.

S.S.P./S.P. and Joint Director Prosecution of the district

concerned are directed to ensure that witnesses are

present on the date fixed so that their testimonies may

be recorded without there being any hindrance.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the

S.S.P/S.P. a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top