Allowed

Dilip and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/1837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application in a rape case, the High Court allowed the applicants' prayer, noting the considerable delay in lodging the FIR and lack of corroborating evidence, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each on attendance and other standard conditions.

Dilip and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:585

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1837 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dilip And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Dubey,Mohd. Rais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . In terms of the FIR registered through an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 27.03.2022, it was alleged that on 28.10.2020, four accused named in the FIR committed rape upon the victim. As regards the delay, it was alleged that on account of fear, she could not register the FIR within time. Subsequently, in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., she stated that she had got the application registered at the insistence of his brother.

¶8

3 . In the light of the aforesaid averments, the submission of the Counsel for the applicant is that father of the accused no.2 and 4 had got registered an FIR with regard to the death of his daughter against the family members of the victim, namely, Dudhnath, Rajendra and Manish and as a sequel to the said FIR, the present FIR has been lodged after about one and a half year dragging the entire family members in the offence in question.

¶9

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

¶10

5. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, what transpires is that there is a considerable delay in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained properly; in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim herself admitted that the FIR was got lodged at the instance of the brother of the informant; the applicant no.1 has a criminal antecedents of one case of the year 2003 under Arms Act; the applicant no.2 has no criminal antecedents and considering the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and there being no corroborating evidence to corroborate the allegations levelled against the applicant and also there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged

¶11

on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

6. Let the applicants Dilip and Mithlesh Kumar be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.115 of 2022, under Sections 452, 376-D IPC, Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh 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:

¶13

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

¶14

(b) The applicants shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) The applicants 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.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 akverma

¶17

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

Dilip and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manvendra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Vinod Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Mukesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Chhotelal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Shrawan Alias Gola Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Riyaz Ahmad S/O Shaukat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy Home and 3 Others