Allowed

Durgesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2023BAIL/29211/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application regarding an FIR alleging rape under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, the Single Judge allowed the application. Relying on Apex Court precedents that physical relations on false promises of marriage may not constitute rape, the court granted bail citing jail overcrowding and right to speedy trial under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each on prescribed conditions.

Durgesh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143459

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29211 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Durgesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav,Mukul Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Durgesh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 538 of 2023, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶9

There is allegation in the FIR that the applicant committed the offence of rape of a girl on the false promise of marriage.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the victim is admittedly major aged about 19 years. She entered into physical relationship with the applicant with consent. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 4.6.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

The Apex Court in the cases of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 182, Promod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharastra and others, MANU/SC/1142/2019, Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharastra and others, MANU/SC/1518/2018, Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2023, Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2022 Lawsuit(SC)973 has held that entering into physical relationship on false promise of marriage does not amounts to commission of offence of rape.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to

¶14

speedy; 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. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 :- 19.7.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Durgesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh 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

Subba @ Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Balwan Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nem Singh Vs State of U.P.

Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Tiwari Vs State of U.P.