Allowed

Surendra Dwivedi @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2021CRLA/1373/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the appellant made out a case for bail. The criminal appeal against the order rejecting bail is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail with bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.01.2021 setting aside bail is set aside. Accused-appellant released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties.

Surendra Dwivedi @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1373 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Surendra Dwivedi @ Chhotu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Chandel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhay Raj Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the complainant has filed counter affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel, holding brief of Sri Abhay Raj Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of S.C./S.T. Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 16.01.2021, passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act / Special Judge (D.A.A.) Act, Chitrakoot in Case Crime No. 47 of 2020, under Sections - 376, 313, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, P.S. - Markundi, District- Chitrakoot.

¶8

Appellant claims false accusation on various grounds; prime being that in this case, the entire matrix of the factual allegation involved and after considering the statement of the father, mother and other relatives of the prosecutrix, it is obvious that it is nothing but some affair without any provocation or allurement being extended on behalf of the appellant that in fact resulted in intimate relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant. Sections - 313, 342 I.P.C. involved in this case were found to be not applicable in the present case. It is claimed that under these circumstances how can it be said that the physical indulgence, which was offered by the prosecutrix herself would fall within the classification of rape as narrated/described under Section - 375 I.P.C. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 20.11.2020.

¶9

Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel, holding brief of Sri Abhay Raj Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that in fact the relationship was established by the applicant with fraudulent objective and motive and the prosecutrix was deceit by trick to establish relationship in the name of false promise to marry.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has adopted the contention of the learned

¶11

counsel for the informant.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶13

Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶14

Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶15

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.01.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶16

Let the accused-appellant - Surendra Dwivedi @ Chhotu involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶17

It is made clear that observation made in this order shall not be construed to have any reflection on merits of the case and shall not prejudice the trial court while deciding the trial.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.9.2021 S Rawat

Surendra Dwivedi @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Dwivedi @ Chhotu 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

Hari Prasad Singh @ Pappu Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Rajpoot @ Munna Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Kumar Bhati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Udaiveer and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another