Allowed

Deepak and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023ABAIL/932/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application allowed for two applicants in an IPC case involving rape and criminal intimidation. Bail granted despite allegations of ulterior prosecution motive, considering FIR delay and prior counter-FIR.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial subject to personal bond with two sureties each and conditions regarding interrogation, inducement, tampering, travel, and appearance.

Deepak and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 932 of 2023 Applicant :- Deepak And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tirpathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Viresh Kumar Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶5

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 30 of 2018, under Sections 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶6

As per prosecution story, the applicant no.1 Deepak and his father Karan Singh applicant no.2 are said to have forcibly taken the informant to an agricultural field on 29.11.2017 at about 05:00 PM and are stated to have attempted to rape her thereby caused injuries to her. Later on, the applicants and their family members are stated to have assaulted the family members of the informant on the same day at about 08:00 PM and are also stated to have criminally intimidated them besides hurling abuses at them by barging into their house.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The FIR is delayed by about two months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the present FIR is a counterblast to FIR No.509 of 2017 which was instituted by applicant no.2 against the family members of the informant/victim. The two injured persons have been examined by the Investigating Officer and they have categorically stated that the said FIR has been instituted as a counterblast to FIR No.509 of 2017. Learned counsel has also stated that the injuries have been fabricated and the said delay itself is indicative of the false implication of the applicant. The final report (charge-sheet) have been submitted on 21.06.2018 and the applicant has cooperated in the investigating and he is ready to cooperate in trial also.

¶8

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for

¶10

grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. categorically reiterates the allegations levelled in the FIR as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. However, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 " and also considering the fact of delay of two months in lodging the FIR and the presence of FIR No.509 of 2017 lodged by the applicant no.2 against the family members of the informant, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed .

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Deepak and Karan Singh, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶14

i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

ii. that the applicants 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶17

iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 Siddhant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak and Another 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

Shamsher Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vikas Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neetu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sangita and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakeel and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another