Allowed

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024/155/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Sections 376(3), 342 IPC and POCSO Act, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed the bail prayer. The court noted unmoving prosecution version, unexplained delay, lack of villager statements, conflicting medical age, and pending civil litigation. Despite prima facie doubts, the applicant was released.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1877

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 155 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. None turned up on behalf of the informant despite notice.

¶7

2 . The F.I.R. in question was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years had gone to relieve herself, at about 11 PM on 29.09.2023 and on the way, the applicant, who was sitting there caught hold of her and took her to his home and thereafter closed her in a room and thereafter committed rape on her. It was also stated that daughter of the informant raised hue and cry, when the villagers came and her life could be saved. It was also stated that when the applicant reached the spot, he found his daughter to be in debilitated condition. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the victim supported the prosecution story, similarly under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she supported the prosecution story. It was alleged that applicant had caused severe injuries.

¶8

3 . The counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the informant stating that daughter of the informant was quite scared and thus, name of the other persons were also mentioned, however, on the information received from the daughter, it was alleged that wrong was done only by the applicant and no one else. In the

¶9

light of the said material, the counsel for the applicant argued that the FIR in question was lodged on 02.10.2023 after about four days without explaining the delay. He further argued that the delay becomes fatal in view of the own assertion that all the villagers had gathered on a cry being raised by the victim and the informant had recovered her in a bad condition. It is further argued that none of the statement of the villagers have been recorded. It is further argued that it is a case of false prosecution in as much as a civil litigation in between the parties is going on, a copy of the litigation under Section 198(4) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 has been filed as Annexure No. 11. The medical report on record does not support the prosecution story. In the light of the said, it is argued that the applicant should be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 05.10.2023.

¶10

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

5 . On the perusal of the material on record, prima facie, the allegations were leveled that after the commission of rape, the victim had raised an alarm and the villagers collected at the spot, however, none of the statements of the villagers is on record. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. particularly when the lots of villagers had gathered, prima facie, has not been explained, medical report on record does not corroborate the F.I.R. version, as per the medical opinion, the age of the victim is about 18 years.

¶12

6. Considering overall statements, prima facie, the version of the prosecution appears to be suspected particularly in view of the fact that there being an ongoing civil litigation in between the parties, the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 05.10.2023 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing

¶13

any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

7. Let the applicant Dheeraj Kumar be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 461 of 2023, under Sections 376(3), 342 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Mill area, Ddistrict Raebareli on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶16

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 Arun

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chhote Lal Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Hajari Kuldeep Alias Hajari Kureel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Shivam Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Irshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sunil Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.