Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEVI SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Devi Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 12789 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19249 (15 November 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 45

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 12789 OF 2006

Devi Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.

Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi and Ms. Madhu Tandan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Akhilesh Srivastava Advocate for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The petitioners were arrayed as an accused on the allegation that    the accused entered in the house of Smt. Asharfi Devi while cooking food in her kitchen and all of them committed rape on her. A first information report was lodged on 21.8.1999. It is submitted that a complaint was also preferred on the same allegation which has been dismissed and subsequently the police submitted final report after completing investigation. During the course of trial, the petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The summoning order is challenged on two grounds; firstly complaint stood dismissed previously and therefore, the summoning order is bad since once the petitioners were exonerated and secondly there is no medical evidence or injury on the private parts and therefore, it is improbable and incomprehensible that all four brothers would commit rape together.

I have gone through the order dated 22.2.2000 in case No. 415 of 1999. The complaint was dismissed for the reason that the investigation was continuing regarding the first information report registered and, therefore, the complaint was pre-mature. The impugned order can not be interfered with since while summoning the petitioners, the court has observed that the victim herself has stated in the court and also before the Investigating Officer that she was subjected to rape by the petitioners. Since they have only been summoned, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has made request that the petitioners had obtained bail previously under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and, therefore, they may be allowed to submit fresh bail bonds in respect of Section 376 I.P.C. and they may not be taken into custody.

The petitioners are permitted to submit fresh bail bonds in respect of Section 376 I.P.C. to the satisfaction of the court concerned and also an undertaking that they will not misuse this liberty, they will not tamper with the evidence and they will be present on each and every date and cooperate in the trial. In the event of default, the court concerned shall take appropriate measure to secure their attendance or take steps otherwise in the interest of justice in accordance with law.

Dt/-15.11.2006.

Rmk.  


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.