Parasnath v State of Uttar Pradesh

Parasnath v State of Uttar Pradesh

Allahabad High Court

25 September 2013

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11587 of 2013

The Order of the Court was as follows :

1. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Parasnath who is involved in Case Crime No. 132 of 2012, under Section 376, 313, 494, 420, 506 and 504 I.P.C., Police Sation Manda, district Allahabad.

2. It has been submitted from the side of the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 10.4.2013. It has further been submitted that on the relevant date the girl was major. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R. itself it is evident that she was a consenting party throughout. It has also been submitted that when the applicant was employed in the Delhi Secretariat the complainant and her family members started marriage negotiation with the parents of the applicant which could not be materialised. Due to refusal on the part of the family members of the applicant including the applicant the prosecutrix and her family members got irritated and thereafter in a calculated manner they sent a letter to the D.G.P. (U.P.). It has further been submitted that nothing has been mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the statements of the girl recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that when and where her abortions were conducted. It has also been submitted that there is no proof or record which may indicate that the applicant ever sent any money to the account of the prosecutrix.

3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned A.G.A. He pointed out that I.O. of the case was summoned in this case with the bank statement of the girl which indicates that some amount of money was deposited in her account.

4. Admittedly on the relevant date the girl was major. From allegations it does not appear that her consent was a free consent. The Court summoned the I.O. of the case with bank statement of the girl but from perusal of such bank statement it is not clear that any amount was deposited by the applicant in the bank account of the girl.

5. A counter affidavit was filed before this Court on 1.8.2013 by Inspector Vishram Sonkar of P.S. Manda, Allahabad. With this counter affidavit an annexure has been filed which is bank statement of the prosecutrix. From perusal of the statement it appears that on various dates various amounts have been deposited in the account of the prosecutrix which is with the State Bank of India, SME Branch, Naini, Allahabad. Most of the amounts were deposited not at State Bank of India, SME branch, Naini but were deposited at branch no. 10440 Patel Dham. It has been informed that this branch is in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. At the relevant time, as per statement of the prosecutrix, the applicant was posted in the Central Secretariat, New Delhi. It also transpires that later on the branch code of State Bank of India, Patel Dham was changed to branch code no. 99999. In respect of most of the deposits inter-branch fee has been charged by the bank. It is indicative of the fact that amounts were not deposited directly in the bank where the savings bank account of the prosecutrix exists. “Cash deposit self” does not necessarily mean that amount was deposited by the account holder himself/herself. These points need further investigation but pending such investigation I do not feel it proper to keep the applicant in jail. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the applicant should be released on short term bail for a period of 60 days. This period of 60 days will commence from the date the applicant is released from jail.

6. Let the applicant Parasnath who is involved in Case Crime No. 132 of 2012, under Section 376, 313, 494, 420, 506 and 504 I.P.C., Police Sation Manda, district Allahabad be released on short term bail of 60 days on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the undertaking that he will not visit State Bank of India, Patel Dham Branch, New Delhi Code No. 99999 or Branch No. 10440 Patel Dham. He will also furnish an undertaking that he will not directly or indirectly try to influence the investigation of the case.

7. It is further directed that after expiry of abovementioned period he will surrender before the court concerned who will send him to jail. Thereafter it will be open to the applicant to move a fresh bail directly before this Court.

8. In the meanwhile this Court will obtain further report of such deposits through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad.

9. Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad is directed to depute any police officer preferably of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to appear before this Court on 8.10.2013 to have instructions from the Court so that he may contact concerned branch of State Bank of India at Delhi to find out who deposited various sums in the bank account of the prosecutrix.

10. Accused or his learned counsel need not appear on that date in this case. However, it is open for him to attend the Court on that date in this case if he so desires.

List this case on 8.10.2013.

11. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned A.G.A. forthwith who will communicate it to the S.S.P., Allahabad for compliance.

Order accordingly

Tags: , ,


Comments are closed.