Allowed

Dheeraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2020BAIL/5040/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Cr.M.C. Bail App. No. 5040 of 2020 regarding an offence under Section 363 IPC, the court allowed the bail application based on the victim's statement that no accusation was levelled against the applicant and the low possibility of tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking, subject to specified conditions.

Dheeraj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5040 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dheeraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.05 of 2020, under Sections 363 I.P.C., Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr applied for bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits in following manner :-

¶8

(i) Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has committed no offence; entire prosecution story is false and fake.

¶9

(ii) As per statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she is major girl aged about 18 years. In her statement, she states that on 28.12.2019, she went out from her house without informing anybody. She did not go with any person. She does not want to go in her house as her parents beat her. She further states that she appeared before police as per her own free will to give statement and she has not levelled any allegation against the applicant.

¶10

(iii) Applicant is in jail since 6.1.2020. There is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., evidence collected by I.O. during investigation and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶13

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant Dheeraj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

2. The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313

¶17

Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶18

3. During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶19

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.2.2020 Manoj

Dheeraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramveer Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Aslam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nizamuddin Vs State of U.P.

Prince Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Amir and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jaggi @ Kadar Khan Vs State of U.P.