Kedar and Another. Vs. State of U.P.

Kedar and Another. vs State of U.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 02, 2010

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911994

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/911994
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Shashi Kant Gupta, J.
Decided On: Aug 02, 2010
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20004 of 2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[R.MALA, J.] - Indian Evidence Act - Section 112; Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) - Sections 53, 173(8); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 376, 417; Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 4 - Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy -- The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, after considering the argume...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - section 156(3); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - 316, 323, 504, 506

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kedar and Another.

Advocate C.B.Dubey, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - section 156(3); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - 316, 323, 504, 506

Excerpt

[r.mala, j.] - indian evidence act - section 112; code of criminal procedure (cr.p.c) - sections 53, 173(8); indian penal code (ipc) - sections 376, 417; dowry prohibition act - section 4 - birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy -- the learned sessions judge, mahila court, after considering the arguments of both sides counsel, allowed the petition by directing the petitioner/accused to part with his blood sample for d.n.a. test to prove the paternity of the child born to p.w.1/complainant, against which, the petitioner/accused has come forward with this revision. on the basis of the complaint given by p.w.1, the case has been registered against the petitioner/accused. since the petitioner/accused refused to marry her, she gave a complaint. the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that p.w.1 herself admitted that she attended the betrothal of the petitioner/accused. the father disputed the paternity of the child and prayed for blood group test of the child to prove that he is not the father of the child. it is not the case that if the paternity of the child is proved, the child will be the son of the petitioner/accused. .....done on account of the profuse bleeding, as alleged by the prosecution, some mark of injury might have been there on the abdomen of the victim but, as per medical report, no sign of any such injury was found on the abdomen of the victim and this fact itself falsifies the whole prosecution story. referring to annexure no. 5 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, which is a copy of the statement of the lady doctor, who had conducted abortion of the victim, he further submits that a bare perusal of the said statement itself transpires that the cause of the alleged bleeding could not be ascertained by the said doctor because on a question being asked the said doctor regarding cause of said bleeding, she has very categorically stated that apart from injury there may be other reasons also for the said bleeding. he further submits that the applicants have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and an absolutely false and fabricated story has been set up with a view to harass, victimise and exert pressure on the applicants because of some enmity going on between the parties over an abadi land. he further submits that the applicant no. 1 is a very old, weak and feeble person of 70 years and his further detention in the jail may be dangerous to his life. he further submits that the applicants have got no criminal history to their credit and there are no chances of their fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and are in jail since 30.6.2010. keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the view that the applicant have made out a case for bail.3. let the applicants kedar and mahendra involved in case crime no. 543 of 2010 under sections 316,323,504, 506 i.p.c., p.s. gaura badshahpur, district jaunpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two.....

Full Judgment

1. As per prosecution story the applicants, who were armed with Lathi-danda, entered the house of the informant and looted Rs. 40,000/- and applicant no. 2 Mahendra also caused injury to her abdomen resulting into profuse bleeding and miscarriage of the fetus of 14-15 weeks in her womb.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged in pursuant to an application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without explaining the delay in filing the said application. He further submits that, as per the medical report, all the injuries, alleged to have been sustained by the victim and her father, were simple in nature and even no mark of injury was found on her abdomen. He further submits that the victim got herself aborted voluntarily and not on account of any injury as alleged by the prosecution because if she had got the abortion done on account of the profuse bleeding, as alleged by the prosecution, some mark of injury might have been there on the abdomen of the victim but, as per medical report, no sign of any such injury was found on the abdomen of the victim and this fact itself falsifies the whole prosecution story. Referring to annexure no. 5 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, which is a copy of the statement of the lady Doctor, who had conducted abortion of the victim, he further submits that a bare perusal of the said statement itself transpires that the cause of the alleged bleeding could not be ascertained by the said Doctor because on a question being asked the said Doctor regarding cause of said bleeding, she has very categorically stated that apart from injury there may be other reasons also for the said bleeding. He further submits that the applicants have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and an absolutely false and fabricated story has been set up with a view to harass, victimise and exert pressure on the applicants because of some enmity going on between the parties over an Abadi Land. He further submits that the applicant no. 1 is a very old, weak and feeble person of 70 years and his further detention in the Jail may be dangerous to his life. He further submits that the applicants have got no criminal history to their credit and there are no chances of their fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and are in jail since 30.6.2010. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant have made out a case for bail.

3. Let the applicants Kedar and Mahendra involved in Case Crime No. 543 of 2010 under Sections 316,323,504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Gaura Badshahpur, District Jaunpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i)The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicants will not pressurise/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii)The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

(iv) The applicant shall report to the police station concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behavior.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Kedar and Another. vs State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Shashi Kant Gupta, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - section 156(3); ...

Criminal