Allowed

Dharmveer v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023BAIL/28900/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants interim bail to an applicant accused of rape under IPC and POCSO Act. The court relied on the absence of visible injuries beyond vaginal redness, lack of criminal history, and trial delay to allow release on bond, directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within eight months.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to standard conditions.

Dharmveer Vs State of U.P.and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196698

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28900 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Dharmveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Case called out in revised list. None present on behalf of the informant. However, learned AGA for the State is present.

¶7

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and according to the FIR applicant committed rape with the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation of rape made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant has been made accused in the present matter only due to village party bandi. He further submits that although as per prosecution victim is 14 years of age but during medical examination no visible injury was found on her body. He further submits that although doctor noted redness on her vagina but merely due to the presence of redness over vagina of the victim, it cannot be said that she was subjected to sexual assault and applicant committed rape with her. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 05.03.2020 i.e. for more than three and half years.

¶11

He further submits that till date not even a single prosecution

¶12

witness could be examined, therefore, it appears that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim at the time of incident was hardly 14 years old and she made allegation of rape against the applicant in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C but could not dispute the fact that except the redness over the vagina no other injury could be noted by the doctor during medical examination of the victim.

¶14

Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant in the present matter is in jail since 05.03.2020 i.e. for more than three and half years and till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined.

¶15

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

¶16

As per allegation, applicant committed rape with minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years and victim i.e. daughter of the informant also made allegation of rape against the applicant in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. but from the perusal of the medical report of the victim, it appears that doctor although found redness on her vagina but did not find any other injury on her body including her private part, therefore, I find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on the basis of presence of redness over the vagina of the victim, it cannot be said that applicant committed rape with the victim.

¶17

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 05.03.2020 i.e. for more than three and half years and till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined, therefore, it appears that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

¶18

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, particularly the long incarceration of the applicant of more than three and half years, 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 - Dharmveer be 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

However, considering the fact that present matter pertains to provisions of POCSO Act, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order strictly as per provisions of Section 35 POCSO Act as well as Section 309 Cr.P.C, if there is no legal impediment.

¶27

Registrar (compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for compliance.

¶28

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 AK Pandey

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmveer v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmveer v. State of U.P.and Another

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

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Ramjeet Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Vishwakarma @ Chiraiya Doctor Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P. and Another