# Jan Mohammad v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 653
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-06-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2013
- **Bench:** Shashi Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jan-mohammad-v-state-of-u-p-42884
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Govt. Advocate

Bail Application- Appeal pending-Second
bail Application-grounds of second bail
are almost same-conviction for a very
serious and heinous offence-of minor
rape-detention in jail may be factor for
consideration but can not be ground for
bail-rejected-hearing expedited.

Held: Para-7
Considering the above arguments raised
by the learned counsel for the parties and
material available on record, I am of the
view that except to enhancement of some
more period of sentence as undergone,
there is no any new ground in this second
bail application. The decision of the above
referred case of Kamal Vs. State of
Haryana
is
distinguishable
and
not
applicable to the facts of this case looking
to the nature of the crime committed by
the appellant. As such, I find no merit in
this bail application. It is liable to be
rejected and is accordingly rejected.

Case Law discussed:
2004 13 Supreme Court Cases

## Text

2 All] Jan Mohammad Vs. State of U.P.
653
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.06.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2013

Jan Mohammad. ..Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri J.K. Gupta, Sri Irshad Ali, Sri P.K.
Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Bail Application- Appeal pending-Second
bail Application-grounds of second bail
are almost same-conviction for a very
serious and heinous offence-of minor
rape-detention in jail may be factor for
consideration but can not be ground for
bail-rejected-hearing expedited.

Held: Para-7
Considering the above arguments raised
by the learned counsel for the parties and
material available on record, I am of the
view that except to enhancement of some
more period of sentence as undergone,
there is no any new ground in this second
bail application. The decision of the above
referred case of Kamal Vs. State of
Haryana
is
distinguishable
and
not
applicable to the facts of this case looking
to the nature of the crime committed by
the appellant. As such, I find no merit in
this bail application. It is liable to be
rejected and is accordingly rejected.

Case Law discussed:
2004 13 Supreme Court Cases

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant, J.)

1. This second bail application is
moved on behalf of the accused applicant.
The first bail application was rejected on
merits by Hon'ble Zaki Ullah Khan, J. on
13.5.2013.

2. I have heard learned counsel for
the appellant/applicant, learned A.G.A.
for the State of U.P. and learned perused
the material available on record.

3. This second bail application has been
filed on behalf of the applicant in S.T No.
258/2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 406
of 2010, under Section 376/506 I.P.C., P.S.
Kumarganj, District Faizabad, whereby, the
applicant has been convicted under Section
376/506 (2) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven
years and three years imprisonment for
section 506 (2) and to pay of find of Rs.
25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the
appellant to further undergo for the period of
six months additional imprisonment.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant
submits that as per the prosecution story
itself the alleged occurrence took place on
26.06.2010 at about 10 a.m while F.I.R.
for the same had been lodged after on
extra ordinary delay of 20 days which
created serious doubt to the prosecution
story even then the learned trial court has
convicted the appellant/applicant without
proper appreciation of evidence and facts
on record. The learned trial court has not
properly appreciated the evidence on
record and particularly this vital fact that
prosecutrix had not disclosed to her
mother on the same day that she was
subjected to rape which was very
unnatural. The learned trial court has
failed to appreciate the medical evidence
with regard to the age of the prosecutix
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which, according to Modi, come to 17-18
years. The learned trial court has also
failed to appreciate the medical report of
the prosecution which clearly reveals that
hymen was torned, two finger easily
inserted and there was no opinion
regarding rape. The learned trial court has
also failed to appreciate that the sole basis
of the alleged prosecution story was extra
judicial confession allegedly made by the
appellant under influence of liquor which
is very weak in nature and unbelievable.

5. In support of his case, learned
counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on the decision reported in 2004
13 Supreme Court Cases 526 in the case
of Kamal vs. State of Haryana in which it
has been held that " the appellant of that
case has been convicted under Section
304-B
I.P.C.
and
sentenced
to
imprisonment for seven years. It appears
that so far the appellant has undergone
imprisonment for about two years and
four months. The High Court declined to
grant bail pending disposal of the appeal
before it. We are of the view that the bail
should have been granted by the High
Court, especially having regard to the fact
that the appellant has already served a
substantial period of the sentence. In the
circumstances, we direct that bail be
granted
to
the
appellant
on
such
conditions as may be imposed by the
District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

6.

Controverting
the
above
arguments raised on behalf of the
appellant,
the
learned
A.G.A.
has
submitted that the appellant has been
convicted for a very serious and heinous
offence of rape with a minor girl. His first
bail
application
was
rejected
on
13.05.2014 after elaborate discussions
made by Hon'ble Zaki Ullah Khan, J.
Most of the arguments raised on behalf of
the appellant belongs to the facts of the
case, which were available to him at the
time of making the first bail application.
As far period of detention is concerned,
that may be a factor for consideration to
grant of bail but that cannot be a sole
ground for granting bail to the appellant.
Case law relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant is not applicable
to the facts of this case and second bail
application of the accused appellant is
liable to be rejected.

7. Considering the above arguments
raised by the learned counsel for the
parties and material available on record, I
am
of
the
view
that
except
to
enhancement of some more period of
sentence as undergone, there is no any
new
ground
in
this
second
bail
application. The decision of the above
referred case of Kamal Vs. State of
Haryana is distinguishable and not
applicable to the facts of this case looking
to the nature of the crime committed by
the appellant. As such, I find no merit in
this bail application. It is liable to be
rejected and is accordingly rejected.

8. However, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case and keeping in
view of the fact that the appellant is in jail
since 20.7.2010 and he will be completing
four years of imprisonment in July, 2014
against total sentence of sevens years
imprisonment which has been granted to
him. Therefore, I am of the view that
hearing of this appeal must be expedited
and this appeal may be disposed of at the
earliest in the interest of the justice.
2 All] Hansnath Yadav & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.
655

9. List this appeal as peremptorily
on 3rd July, 2014 among top of the 5
cases.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 539 of 2011

Hansnath Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C.. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri A.K. Jauhari

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Prabhakar Tewari

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section 173Appeal For enhancement of compensation
towards less of consortium by a house
hold women-in absence of direct evidenceincome can not be assessed less than
5000/-per month-accordingly applying 11
multiplier-held
proper-appeal
allowedcompensation enhanced from Rs. 2,29,500
to 6,30,000 with 9% interest.

Held: Para-15, 17
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing
with the determination of income of a
skilled worker, in the context of current
scenario has determined minimum income
of a skilled worker as Rs.5000 to 6000/-
per month.

17. In the present case, the deceased
Smt. Rajmati Yadav was aged about 54
years and was performing the functions
of
skilled
worker/self-employed,
in
addition to her contribution to the family
as wife or mother, who died in the
accident occurred in the year 2002. Her
income in such circumstances could not
be assessed at less than Rs.5,000/- per
month.

Case Law discussed:
(2010) 3 TAC 769; (2013) 10 SCC 695; 2013
ACJ 2594; (2013) 9 SCC 54; Civil Appeal No.
10918 of 2013.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. The present appeal has been
preferred by the husband and his four sons,
challenging the award of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal dated 17.2.2011 passed in
M.A.C.P. No. 533 OF 2003, awarding
Rs.2,29,500/- as compensation, on account
of death of Smt. Rajmati Yadav on
27.10.2002 and have sought enhancement of
compensation. The award of the tribunal has
been accepted by the respondent- UPSRTC
and no appeal has been preferred by it.

2. On 27.10.2002 at about 4.15 PM,
when the appellant no.1 along with his wife
Smt. Rajmati Yadav who was a pillion rider
on a scooter bearing registration no. UGD1598 was coming from Chinhat Bazar
towards his house, the driver of the
roadways bus bearing registration no. UP32 0077 dashed the scooter from behind due
to rash and negligent driving. On account of
that accident, the appellant no.1 and
deceased Smt. Rajmati Yadav sustained
serious injuries. When deceased was taken
to the medical college, she was declared to
be dead. Son of the appellant no.1, namely
Devendra Kumar Yadav, who was coming
behind the scooter, was present on the spot
and has seen the incident. He admitted his
father-mother in the hospital and on
28.10.2002 he informed in writing to the
police station Chinhat, upon which a first
information report was lodged. Claim under
section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was