Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1439 (ALL)

Ram Ashish Deubey v. State of U. P.

2011-06-21

SHABIHUL HASNAIN, VEDPAL

body2011
Shabihul Hasnain and Vedpal, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for grant of short term bail in the pending appeal and also perused the record of the case. 2. In S.T.No. 232 of 2009( Crime No.383 of 2008), appellant Ram Ashish Dubey has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 377 I.P.C.. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one year. He was further convicted under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC ST Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the spermatozoon either dead or alive was also not found in the smear in the pathological examination and as per the opinion of the doctor the injury may be caused by falling of the victim on the dry harvested plant of Arhar. 4. This short term bail has been pressed on the ground that the Uncle of the appellant/applicant has died and he wants to participate in terhi ceremony. 5. This short term bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. by contending that the deceased has a son and it is merely an excuse to get the bail. The offence is of serious nature and the applicant has been sentenced to life imprisonment. 6. Considered the submissions made by the parties. The parameters to be kept in view, while dealing with prayer for bail, have been indicated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in several cases, i.e. in Anwari Begum Vs. Sher Mohammad (2005) 7 SCC 325, Chaman Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) 7 SCC 525 , Anil Kumar Tulsiyani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 9 SCC 425 , State of T.N. Vs. Eslian @ Jothi Basu (2006) 9 SCC 785 , Siddarth Vashishta @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 5 SCC 230 . Sher Mohammad (2005) 7 SCC 325, Chaman Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) 7 SCC 525 , Anil Kumar Tulsiyani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 9 SCC 425 , State of T.N. Vs. Eslian @ Jothi Basu (2006) 9 SCC 785 , Siddarth Vashishta @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 5 SCC 230 . It has been held in these cases that the Court while considering the bail application has to consider among other circumstances, the nature of accusations and severity of the punishment and the nature of the supporting evidence and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. It is settled law that at the stage of consideration of bail, detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case is not required to be undertaken. Broad spectrum of the case is to be seen at this stage. The offence is of very serious nature. 7. Having regard to all these aspects of the case, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for short term bail also. 8. The short term bail application is, therefore, rejected. 9. Office is directed to list this appeal for final hearing on merits, in due course.