Allowed

Tejpal S/O Late Ratanpal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2022/7903/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC involving rape, cruelty, and dowry allegations, the single judge found the prosecution story unconvincing and concocted. Bail was granted conditioned on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions of attendance and specific undertakings.

Tejpal S/O Late Ratanpal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7903 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Tejpal S/O Late Ratanpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Suresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh Tomarl, learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0101 of 2022, under Sections 504, 506 and 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act lodged at Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow.

¶7

Allegation against the applicant and his son is of raping complainant and her daughter. It is alleged that the marriage of daughter of the complainant was fixed with son of the accusedapplicant and on this pretext, son of the accused-applicant established physical relation with daughter of the complainant. The present accused-applicant also forced the complainant on the threat that if she would not agree to have physical relation with him, marriage would not take place. It is further alleged that after having physical relation, co-accused escaped from marriage though marriage cards were distributed for the marriage to be taken place on 20.03.2022

¶8

Submission made on behalf of the accused-applicant is that there was talk of marriage of daughter of the complainant with son of the accused-applicant, however, son of the accusedapplicant did not agree for marriage with daughter of the complainant and, for this reason a false and concocted story has been set up to falsely implicate the accused-applicant and his son. The accused-applicant has been languishing in jail since 23.04.2022. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is palpably false and whole prosecution story has been concocted to put pressure on the accused-applicant for marriage of daughter of the complainant with his son, though his son did not agree to marry the daughter of the complainant. It is further submitted that provision of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case as neither dowry has been given nor accepted and since there was no marriage, provision of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is also not attracted.

¶9

On behalf of the respondent-State, bail has been opposed and, it has been submitted that the complainant, and her daughter in their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC have supported the prosecution case and, considering the stand of the prosecutrix and her daughter in their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, it cannot be said that the prosecution story is false or concocted one.

¶10

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the bail application.

¶11

The story set up by the prosecution in the complaint, is not convincing. It appears that the marriage proposal of daughter of the complainant got rejected by son of the accused-applicant and, therefore, the FIR came to be registered. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place and without commenting any further upon merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶12

Let applicant- Tejpal , accused of above-mentioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) the applicant(s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶14

(ii). the applicant(s) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶15

(iii). in case, the applicant(s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and

¶16

(iv) the applicant(s) shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.8.2022 MVS/-

¶18

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.08.08 18:02:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tejpal S/O Late Ratanpal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal S/O Late Ratanpal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Naveen Srivastava Vs Prin. Judge Family Court Lucknow and Others

Alakh Ram Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Kirpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Alias Joginder Bahra S/O Ram Chandra Alias Chander Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Kumar S/O Late Ramnath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.