Allowed

Bablu Urf Udaybhan Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jun 2023BAIL/21036/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the High Court allowed the applicant Bablu Urf Udaybhan Singh to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 667 of 2011 involving charges of kidnapping, abetment, and rape. The court noted preliminary facts including a prior Writ Petition where the victim alleged coercion and subsequent recording of a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but granted bail subject to stand

What did the court decide?

The applicant Bablu Urf Udaybhan Singh was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or appear before the

Bablu Urf Udaybhan Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:127224

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21036 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Bablu Urf Udaybhan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Singh,Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 667 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C., Police Station - Sikandra District - Agra with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in the First Information Report it has been mentioned that the victim Babita was taken away by Dinesh Kumar @ D.K. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed the certified copy of the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16860 of 2011 which was filed by Smt. Poonam Devi, Chandra Bhan, Uday Bhan @ Bablu, Anil and Babita (victim) before this Court for quashing of FIR dated 16.08.2011. Learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court order dated 01.09.2011 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16860 of 2011. In the order dated 01.09.2011 it has been recorded by Bench that Babita (victim) is present in Court and has stated that she out of her own sweet will is living with Dinesh Kumar without any coercion and compulsion and wants to marry with him. The arrest of the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16860 of 2011 was stayed by this Court.

¶9

In pursuance of the order dated 01.09.2011 passed by Division Bench a statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that the petitioners have forcibly taken away and in fact she stated she was raped also against her wishes.

¶10

In view of the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. 16860 of 2011 was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2012. Copy of the order dated 17.01.2012 is annexed their page 24 of the paper book. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the same was sent by the court below to this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16860 of 2011. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that main accused Dinesh Kumar @ D.K was granted bail by order dated 09.02.2012 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 661 of 2012. Copy of the bail order at page 26 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of this Court to the recital made in order dated 09.02.2012 wherein it has come that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape against Bablu (uncle) present applicant, Chandra Bhan (father) and Devendra. Learned counsel for the applicant also invited the attention of the Court to Parcha dated 19.06.2022 which is at page 29 of the paper book wherein it has been mentioned that the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not come back from the High Court. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against Dinesh Kumar @ D.K and for other co-accused including applicant the investigation remain pending.

¶11

This Court vide order dated 15.06.2023 directed that this Court list along with record Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16860 of 2011 (Smt. Poonam Devi and other Vs. State of U.P). Office is submitted a report dated 16.06.2023 that the record of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16860 of 2011 has been destroyed and the same being digitalized and same may be assessed on-line.

¶12

I have perused the certified copy of the writ petition produced by counsel for the applicant. It has been contended by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is the uncle of D.K. who was alleged to have eloped with the victim. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that Dinesh Kumar @ D.K facing trial being S.T. No. 1019 of 2011 (State Vs. Dinesh @ D.K) wherein statement of P.W. 1 Sunil Kumar, P.W. 2 Ved Prakash and P.W. 3 Om Veer have been recorded by the Session Judge and the same are annexed as annexure No. 9 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application and from the perusal of the same, it is clear that there is no allegation of rape leveled against the applicant. It has been also pointed out by the learned counsel for applicant that accused has no criminal history, is languishing in jail

¶13

since 12.02.2023 and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶14

Per contra Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not deny the aforesaid fact that main accused Dinesh Kumar has been granted bail and is facing trial, the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not on record as the same sent to the High Court from where it was never returned and fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶15

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶16

The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant - Bablu Urf Udaybhan Singh in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶18

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶19

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 16.6.2023

¶24

Satish

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bablu Urf Udaybhan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Urf Udaybhan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Shakeel @ Baba Vs State of U.P.

Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Master X. Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Achal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others