Dilip Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52590 of 2021

Applicant :- Dilip Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arimardan Yadav,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

As per the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj the notice issued to opposite party no.3 has been personally served, however, no one is present on behalf of opposite party no.3.

¶6

Heard Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Dilip for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 189 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 5L/6 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶9

It is further submitted that the incident has been reported to the police on 2.6.2021 at 23.56 hours at Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj by the father of the prosecutrix with the allegations that his daughter (Prosecutrix) had gone to ease herself on 21.6.2021 at 10.00 A.M. and she had been enticed away by the instant applicant. The prosecutrix had fled away with the applicant along with Rs 5000/- and some jwellery.

¶10

It is also stated that the parents of the applicant had cooperated in the commission of the crime.

¶11

Highlighting the above facts, it is submitted that the incident has been reported with the delay of one day and no reasonable explanation of the same has been given. However, the prosecutrix is stated to have been recovered on 3.6.2021 and her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded wherein she has categorically stated that she had gone with the applicant with her free wish and will and they have married in a

¶12

temple and she was living in the house of the applicant with him as husband and wife. She has repeated the same statement in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and no allegation of either forceful abduction or making of forceful sexual relation has been alleged against the applicant, either in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 or 164 Cr.P.C.

¶13

It is further submitted that in fact the prosecutrix and the applicant are of the same age, they were having an affair and have decided to marry and therefore the allegations as revealed in the first information report are not true and have been negated by the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C.

¶14

It is further submitted that the case of the prosecutrix is also not supported by any medical evidence as the prosecutrix has refused to undergo any medical examination. The date of birth of the prosecutrix as per the School Leaving Certificate of 8th Class is shown to be as 18.6.2006, however, during the course of investigation it is found by the Investigating Officer that the age as recorded in the School record is not correct.

¶15

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 5.6.2021. Charge sheet in the matter has already been filed and he is not having any previous criminal history. There is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶16

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and therefore he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that though in the first information report allegation of abducting and enticing away the prosecutrix by the instant applicant and his parents have been levelled but on being recovered in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has not supported the version of the prosecution. She has stated that she left her home with her free wish and will and had married with the applicant on her own volition and she has not imputed any allegation of forceful sexual activity or abduction and kidnapping. The applicant is in jail in this case since 5.6.2021 and he is not having any criminal history and the prosecutrix in so many words have stated that the prosecutrix and the applicant are now living as husband and wife.

¶18

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Dilip involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶26

Order Date :- 18.4.2022 Muk

¶27

Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.04.18 17:54:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilip v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahid@ Sahil Vs State of U.P. and Anohter

Satyaveer Vs State of U.P.

Moin Vs State of U.P.

Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus Vs State of U.P.

Deepika Shukla @ Nitil Vs State of U.P.

Mahtab Vs State of U.P. and Another