Allowed

Dharampal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023BAIL/23713/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed bail to Dharampal in a rape and POCSO conspiracy case. The Court noted allegations of false implication by the victim's mother and approved release subject to strict conditions, citing overcrowding and Fundamental Rights without deciding the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to undertakings not to tamper with evidence, not seek adjournments during evidence, and remain present for specific trial stages.

Dharampal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171402

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23713 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dharampal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant that he has committed the offence of rape, beating, threatening in conspiracy with other co-accused of a minor girl aged about 10 years. Implication under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act has also been made.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that it is case of absolute false implication. He has brought on record the clear medical examination report of the victim which shows that there was no sign of rape of victim found by the doctor. Her hymen was found to be intact. The allegation in the FIR is that the applicant is the uncle of the victim and he along with another uncle, Sonu, has allegedly committed the offence of rape of the child victim for last one year.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant also submits that the mother of the victim has deserted the victim and her other siblings and married another man. The children were being looked after by the joint family which consists of their grandmother, grandfather, aunt ( bua ) and uncles. The mother of the victim wanted share in the house and therefore she has got the entire family members of matrimonial home falsely implicated in this case. He has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 12.12.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. The entire family of the applicant is suffering because of the false implication of the applicant in this case by the mother of the victim.

¶11

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

¶12

bail.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Dharampal, involved in Case Crime No. 460 of 2022, under Sections- 323, 506, 376, 120-B IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Dadon, District- Aligarh, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Rohit

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharampal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharampal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Santosh Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalwa Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sabittra Devi @ Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P.

Gangesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shakti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others