Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 714 of 2023

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 11.11.2022 in Case Crime No. 146 of 2022 u/s 376, 457 IPC, P.S. Gilaula, District Shrawasti. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶7

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 20.6.2022 but the F.I.R. has been lodged pursuant to the application being filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 29.7.2022 with the delay of 39 days and no reason for delay has been explained either in the application filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. or in the F.I.R. Pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate the F.I.R. has been lodged on 13.9.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecutrix is a married lady of 30 years and no medical examination was conducted then and there after the alleged incident in question dated 20.6.2022. However, the medical examination was conducted on 16.9.2022 after lodging of the F.I.R. which has not supported the prosecution version as nothing against the present applicant has been found.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the bare perusal of the prosecution story, as narrated in the F.I.R., creates suspicion on such story inasmuch as para 2 of the F.I.R. says that the prosecutrix was sleeping and the applicant started raping her whereas para 3 whereof reads that in the meantime the prosecutrix awoke

¶9

and started shouting. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The present applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶11

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

¶12

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been lodged after delay of 39 days and such delay has not been explained in the F.I.R., no medical examination was conducted immediately after the alleged incident in question, however, such medical examination was conducted after lodging of F.I.R. wherein nothing incriminating material has been found against the applicant, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶13

Let the applicant Dinesh Kumar Yadav , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial

¶16

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.

¶17

(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. 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.

¶18

(iv) 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 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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶20

Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.

¶21

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 13.1.2023 Om

¶23

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

Shivakant Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ghanshyam Saroj Vs the State Thru. C.B.I.

Rita Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharam Raj Paswan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko.