Allowed

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2023BAIL/17202/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application by an accused charged with rape and other offences. The court noted the FIR was lodged years late via a magistrate's order, the victim was a consenting adult, and there was a pending financial dispute, concluding bail was appropriate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the bail application. Released the applicant on a personal bond and sureties upon meeting standard bail conditions.

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117535

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17202 of 2023 Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pooja

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shailesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Pooja, learned counsel for the informant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.29 of 2023, under Sections 376,406,452,427 and 506 IPC, Police Station Adalhat, District Mirzapur during pendency of the trial.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.2.2023 against the applicant on the basis of the application moved by the informant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 12.1.2023 and according to the FIR, applicant under the false promise of marriage committed rape with the informant and on 10.12.2022 he also entered in her house along with his associates and damaged her household items and also threatened her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and allegation of rape which was made against the applicant in the FIR appears to be quite vague as neither the date nor the year has been mentioned and FIR of the present case was lodged on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved after several years from the alleged rape

¶9

and even after about one month from the alleged date of making attack over the informant after entering in her house.

¶10

He further submits that although victim in the FIR and in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C stated against applicant but even from its face value entire allegation made against the applicant that he under the false promise of marriage committed rape with her appears to be false as victim is a major lady aged about more than 30 years. He further submits, even if entire allegations made against the applicant are accepted then also no offence under Section 376 IPC against the applicant is made out as from the record victim appears to be consenting party.

¶11

He next submits that actually it is a case of false implication and some dispute arose with regard to payment between applicant and victim and on 9.1.2023 applicant also moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the informant which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application and only due to this reason a false application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the victim against applicant on 12.1.2023, i.e., after about three days.

¶12

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 18.3.2023.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the FIR as well as in both the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.there is allegation against the applicant that under the false promise of marriage he committed rape with her but both the learned counsels could not

¶14

dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged on the basis of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after several years from the alleged rape and victim, i.e., the informant of the case is major lady aged about more than 30 years and even before moving her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., applicant has also moved an application against her under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 9.1.2023.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

Although in the FIR as well as in both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the victim, i.e., informant of the case, made allegation of sexually exploitation against the applicant under the false promise of marriage but admittedly victim of the case is a major lady aged about 30 years and from the record her consent is evident.

¶17

Further, FIR of the present case was lodged after several years from the date of alleged rape through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 12.1.2023 but even prior to this on 9.1.2023 applicant moved an application against the victim under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C. which shows that there is some dispute pending with regard to payment between applicant and victim.

¶18

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant- Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar be

¶21

released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶26

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶27

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 SKM

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Akash Goswami Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yamuna Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ramdas @ Bhagat Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vivek Pal @ Shani Vs State of U.P.