Allowed

Veer Singh @Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023ABAIL/4346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The applicant faced charges of molestation and attempted rape. The court found the case pretextual, noting prosecution variations and lack of medical examination. Bail granted on bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount.

Veer Singh @Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4346 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Veer Singh @Dharmendra Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachida Nand Tiwari,Murli Dhar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

The case is taken in the revised call.

¶7

Heard Mr. Sachida Nand Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.425 of 2021, under Sections 354, 506, 452, 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Bansgaon, DistrictGorakhpur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶9

As per the prosecution case, an FIR has been lodged on 24.12.2021, under Section 354, 506, 452 IPC by the victim herself against the applicant with the allegations that the victim is studying in the same school in which the applicant's daughter is studying. The applicant under the garb of dropping her to school, took her to his house, locked the door of the room and molested her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He further submits that earlier an FIR was lodged on 15.12.2018 by one Jeetan Prasad against the father of the victim, Deepak Tripathi and two others in which the applicant was witness. In order to exert pressure upon the applicant not to give any statement in the aforesaid case against the accused therein and to withdraw himself from being witness to the aforesaid case, the applicant was badly beaten on 24.12.2021 for which, an FIR has been lodged against the accused persons on 24.12.2021, copy of the said FIR has been annexed as Annexure no.2 to the bail application. The accused therein are relatives of the victim. Subsequently, the present FIR has been lodged on 24.12.2021 against the applicant to

¶11

wreak vengeance as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the applicant.

¶12

He further submits that though the FIR has been lodged by the victim herself but she has not stated about the act done by the applicant as narrated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was recorded on 10.01.2022. She has also refused to get herself internally medically examined. He further submits that from the variations in the FIR as well as statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the fact that the victim has refused to get herself medically examined, go to show that a concocted story has been built up to falsely implicate the applicant. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant in any serious offence. He further submits that the charge sheet has not been submitted till date. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant has also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but does not dispute the factual aspects of the matter.

¶14

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court.

¶15

In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Veer Singh @Dharmendra Kumar Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the

¶18

trial.

¶19

The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶23

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/her/them in accordance with law.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Jitendra/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Veer Singh @Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Singh @Dharmendra Kumar Singh 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

Smt Jyoti Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhlakh Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Sonvir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sultan and 11 Others Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Singh Tomar Vs State of U.P. 2 Others