Allowed

Dheeraj Kumar @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2018BAIL/9364/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant accused of abduction and gang rape under Section 364-A IPC and SC/ST Act, rejecting the recovery evidence due to lack of victim father's signature. The appeal was allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with two sureties on a personal bond under Section 364-A IPC and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act.

Dheeraj Kumar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9364 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prabhash Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Kalimullah Khan, J. vide order dated 28.9.2012.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the fard recovery which was made by the police does not bear any signature of the father of the victim, therefore, it is submitted that the said recovery is false one. It is further submitted that earlier co-accused namely Dinesh Kumar has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29398 of 2014 which was rejected vide order dated 10.9.2014, while rejecting the said bail application trail of the case was also expedited, but till date only two witnesses have been examined by the trial Court. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 7.9.2011.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Let the applicant Dheeraj Kumar @ Kallu involved in Case Crime No.2378 of 2011, under Section 364-A and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST, Police Station Quila, District Bareilly be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶11

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶12

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶13

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶14

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 2.1.2018 Dev/-

Dheeraj Kumar @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar @ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanawaz Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Mansoor @ Muda Vs State of U.P.

Qamar Gulzar Vs State of U.P.