Allowed

Dharamveer v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2023BAIL/53778/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Dharamveer, charged under Section 376-D, 120-B, and 506 IPC. The court found the case fit for bail due to lack of material indicating tampering with evidence and granted bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance, non-tampering with evidence, and appearance at trial stages.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:122989

¶2

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53778 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dharamveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Pandey,Pulkit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Dharamveer seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 610 of 2022, under Section 376-D, 120-B, 506 I.P.C. registered at P.S.- Khurja Nagar, District- Bulandshahr.

¶7

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 18.12.2021, whereas F.I.R. has been lodged on 16.06.2022 without any plausible explanation of such inordinate delay of six months. He further submits that the victim is a married lady aged about 30 years and that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, only to extract the money. He further submits that the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161, 164 and FIR version are contradictory to each other. The informant has named her husband in the FIR including the other co-accused for committing the rape. The present applicant is friend of the victim's husband. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.10.2022 having no criminal history. Co-accused have been granted bail by this Court on 18.1.2023, 17.2.2023 and

¶8

11.4.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 51787 of 2022, 7728 of 2023 and 4898 of 2023, respectively.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail.

¶11

The bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶12

Let the applicant- Dharamveer be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶16

iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶17

v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is

¶18

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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.6.2023 safi

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharamveer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamveer 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

Suab Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Sharafat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Oomi @ Omprakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Yadav @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others