Single Judge High Court granted bail to applicant accused in a rape and criminal intimidation case, noting allegations of false implication and lack of injuries, while laying down comprehensive conditions for release.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to listed conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44559 of 2022 Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Kumar, Raman Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Counter affidavit on behalf of first informant has been filed by Mr. Sandeep Maniji Bakshi, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Ganesh Kumar and Mr. Raman Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Sandeep Maniji Bakshi, learned counsel for first informant and perused the material available on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.51 of 2021, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sonha, District Basti.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The incident took place on 31.08.2020 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. after more than 5 months of the alleged incident but no explanation regarding delay has been given. Further contention is that as per FIR as well statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim is aged about 25 years. As per medical report, no internal and external injury has been body on the body of the victim. There is no opinion of rape. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant 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. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.07.2022 having no previous criminal history.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of
allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant- Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(ii) The applicant 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 IPC.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 IPC.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 25.11.2022/Ajeet
Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.11.25 15:37:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail in a case involving rape and criminal intimidation where the accused claims false implication.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of injuries on the victim support the grant of bail.
What conditions should be imposed on the release of the applicant on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and othersDoubted¶9
Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar
State of U.P.
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
