Dilshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57659

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9030 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dilshad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Srees Kumar Srivastava,Amit Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.108 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Patranga, District Ayodhya.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that victim in her statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case she stated that she on her own accord went away with the applicant. Victim has refused to undergo medical examination. Age of the victim as per her statement is 17 years. The prosecution has not subjected the victim for ossification test. The victim is major and consenting party. No offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC is made out as the element of enticement is missing in the prosecution case. Applicant has falsely been implicated in this case.

¶10

He further submits that FIR has been lodged after delay of two days and victim remained with the applicant for a period of 22 days without raising any alarm. Applicant is in jail since 30.05.2024.

¶11

Perused the record.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2024, statement of the victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and also the fact that FIR has been lodged after delay of two days and victim remained with the applicant for a period of 22 days without raising any alarm but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Dilshad be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may

¶20

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dilshad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilshad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

Rajesh Mishra @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gurjant Singh Dhillon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Lko.

Avnish Singh @ Avinash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Irshad Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another