Allowed

Dilip Saroj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 May 2023/11926/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving sexual offences and assault. The release was ordered based on discrepancies between the initial FIR and later statements by the victim, as well as the absence of medical evidence supporting rape charges, coupled with the applicant's clean criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Dilip Saroj on bail in Case Crime No. 467 of 2021 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Dilip Saroj Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35424

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11926 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Dilip Saroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Tiwari,Prachi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sachin Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 467 of 2021, under Sections 354-A, 354-B, 323, 147, 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 28.07.2022 at 18:23 hrs against five named accused persons, stating that the applicant dragged her inside her house, pushed her down, tried to misbehave with her. When she raised hue and cry, her brother reached to save her whereupon the other accused persons abused and beaten her brother.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶10

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the documents collected during investigation.

¶11

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the FIR version and before the doctor, who conducted medico legal examination, she stated the same thing, however, in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the informant stated that the applicant had raped her but in pathological examination report no spermatozoa were seen in the slide.

¶12

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant did not allege commission of rape in the FIR; that the victim also did not level allegation of rape in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also before the doctor who conducted

¶14

medico legal examination and the allegation was levelled for the first time before the magistrate and it is not supported by the medico legal examination report and pathological report, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since19.08.2021 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶15

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Dilip Saroj be released on bail in Case Crime No. 467 of 2021, under Sections 354-A, 354-B, 323, 147, 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 Pradeep/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dilip Saroj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Saroj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taukeer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko, U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rambeti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home,Lko.

Ravi Shanker Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Shravan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Maruf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Manoj Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.