Allowed

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023CRLA/6683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the High Court set aside the bail rejection order by the Special Judge. The Court held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for bail, noting the error in the lower court's decision, and allowed the appeal to grant bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering, intimidating witnesses, and appearing in court.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139151

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6683 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Dharmendra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Kumar Gupta,Haidar Ali Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Adil Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Adil Khan, learned counsel for the informant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.06.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Amroha in Bail Application No. 1433 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Sections 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Amroha Dehat, District Amroha.

¶8

As per the version of first information report, prior to the six months of lodging the F.I.R. when the prosecutrix was going to her field, appellant alongwith two other co-accused namely Shankar and Monu caught hold her and committed gang rape with her. They made her obscene video and also clicked her obscene photographs. Again on 08.03.2023, when prosecutrix went to her field to collect the grass, appellant alongwith two othr co-accused Monu and Shankar abducted her and took her at a hotel Knight View Pagwara and where appellant forcefully committed rape with her.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act but later on the name of co-accused Shankar and Monu exonerated while the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. also made allegations of gang rape against them. It is further submitted that call detail record of mobile number of victim and appellant reveals that victim was having love affair with appellant. Since 01.12.2022 to

¶10

10.03.2023 both of them had made conversations 1013 times which indicates that prosecutrix was consenting party. It is further submitted that the entry made in the register of hotel Knight View Pagwara, Moradabad shows that they put their signature and shown their relation as friend. It is further submitted that during her medical examination no finding of rape was given. The appellant does not have any criminal history to their credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 27.03.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail contending that victim has corroborated the version of first information in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, they could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶14

Let the appellant, namely, Dharmedndra involved in the above Case be released on bail on 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 appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

(v) The appellant 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.7.2023 AKT

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra 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

Anil Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Israr Shekh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhruvchandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bantu Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up

Dilip @ Tarjan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another