Allowed

Deepak Rathaur v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2023BAIL/47346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an offence under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, the court allowed bail noting contradictions in the FIR regarding the victim's relationship to the applicant, delay in lodging the complaint, and absence of recovered evidence like the alleged video.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of attending trial and not tampering with evidence.

Deepak Rathaur Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47346 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak Rathaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Tripathi,Pradeep Kumar Yadav,Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Deepak Rathaur, who is involved in Case Crime No. 394 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, police station Uttar, district Firozabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, in brief, the victim herself lodged the first information report on 01.06.2022 against the applicant with the allegation inter alia that the applicant is her neighbour and he had made her obscene video while she was taking bath and thereafter on the pretext of said video, he has sexually abused her for the last six months.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim is a married woman. In the F.I.R., the victim has stated that the applicant is her neighbour whereas she in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated inter alia that the applicant is her brother-in-law (devar). It is next submitted that in the F.I.R., no specific date of incident has been disclosed whereas she in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has disclosed that the applicant has made physical relation with her for the last six months and lastly physical relation between them was made in September, 2021 whereas the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged on 01.06.2022. Much emphasis has been given by contending that during investigation, neither mobile phone of the applicant was taken by the Investigating OfÏcer nor any alleged video has been collected. The reason is

¶9

obvious that F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of a false and concocted allegation by the victim in order to settle her personal score because there was some dispute between the applicant and the husband of the victim with regard to some money transaction. It is also pointed out that medical examination report of the victim also does not corroborate the prosecution case. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.08.2022 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the main allegation of the victim against the applicant that he had made her obscene video and on that pretext, he started blackmailing her but no such video has been collected by the Investigating OfÏcer. The victim is major. The F.I.R. has been lodged after much delay as noted above and there are material contradictions in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the victim regarding status of the applicant, therefore, possibility of false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Deepak Rathaur , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing

¶14

a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(ii) That 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 or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶18

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.4.2023 Shubham

¶21

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

Deepak Rathaur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Rathaur 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

Rajeev Vs State of U.P.

Dharamveer Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Sahani Vs State of U.P.

Machkund Gurjar @ Gaurav Vs State of U.P.