Allowed

Dhirendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2022/8217/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 376, 323, and 342 IPC regarding an allegation of rape, the High Court granted bail. The court emphasized contradictions in the medical report, victim statements, and FIR, noting no definite signs of force were found and considering Article 21 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged on bail to execute a personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions.

Dhirendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8217 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant,Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The applicant Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.64 of 2021,under Sections 376,323,342 IPC, Police-Station Kakori, District Lucknow.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the First Information Report was lodged on 03.02.2021 by the complainant against the accused applicant under Sections 376,323, 342 IPC.It is also alleged therein that daughter of the complainant was working as Nurse in Shardha Hospital and Trauma Centre, Kashmandi Road, Lucknow.She was directed by the applicant who was also working in the said hospital as Pharmacist to come for night duty in the hospital. Thereafter he told the complainant's daughter that his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) is not feeling well and took the victim to his house where he committed rape with victim and after raising alarm by mobile some doctors and staff came there and rescued the victim from the clutches of the accused applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim were recorded which are contradictory as alleged in the FIR. The statement of the complainant was also recorded by the Investigating Officer and there is major contradiction in the version and in the FIR of the complainant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in fact no such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution. The FIR was lodged with inordinate delay and no explanation for the same was given.

¶10

The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by one Man Singh, who is the owner of the Shardha Hospital and Trauma Centre, Kashmandi Road, Lucknow where the victim was employed. On her instructions, the applicant has been falsely implicated.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the real story behind the present case is that applicant/ accused has a degree in B. Pharma and he used to work in some hospital in the meantime the applicant had collected some money for opening the Private Medical Shop and during that period the applicant met Man Singh who is running the aforesaid hospital and Man Singh offered the accused/ applicant to work and join the partnership in his hospital and said that according to his share in the expenses incurred in building of the hospital he will have to pay rupees and the applicant agrees to become a partner in the Hospital.

¶12

It is also submitted that some people were also partners before the joining the Partnership of the accused/ applicant and fixed the share of Man Singh 50% Deshraj and Anil 25% and applicant 25%, in this way the four partners of the said hospital Man Singh, Deshraj, Anil and the applicant became the partner of their share.After payment of Rs.5 Lac to Sri Man Singh by the accused applicant then Man Singh asked the applicant to write an agreement but the applicant was pressing for the execution of the agreement of the partnership-deed, Man Singh and other partners refused to execute any agreement of partnership-deed thereafter dispute arose between applicant and Man Singh thereafter warning and threatening was given to the accused applicant if demands of money is made, they will falsely implicate applicant in fake case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that victim was medically examined by the doctor and medical examination does not support the story of the prosecution. The doctor has opined that no live or dead spermatozoa seen and no gonococci seen. He further stated in the final opinion given by the doctor there was no definite signs of use of force however sexual assault cannot be ruled out.

¶14

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that from the perusal of the medical report, it cannot be said that allegation of rape against the applicant is correct. There is no internal or external injury was found

¶15

on the body of the victim which also demolish the prosecution case that the rape was committed by the applicant, therefore, no case under Sections 376,323,342 IPC is made out against the applicant and the chargesheet was filed in mechanical manner without application of mind by the Investigating Officer.

¶16

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 05.02.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the contradiction in the statements of the victim/prosecutrix under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the contradiction in the statement of the complainant recorded by the Investigating Officer and the First Information Report as well as the medical report of the victim conducted by the doctor and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant, Dhirendra Kumar Yadav involved in Case Crime No.64 of 2021,under Sections 376,323,342 IPC, Police-Station Kakori, District Lucknow, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶21

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶22

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶23

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶24

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶25

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.

¶26

(6) The applicant 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.

¶27

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶28

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶29

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the

¶30

aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶32

Order Date :- 16.2.2022 dk/

¶33

Digitally signed by DEVENDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.02.18 14:20:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhirendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Kumar Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jagat Pal Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Shri Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others