Allowed

Dileep Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024ABAIL/1547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Dileep Dubey in a matrimonial dispute involving rape and other offences. The court made an interim order absolute after noting the charge sheet filing and lack of criminal history, directing surrender to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; interim protection made absolute; applicant directed to surrender and released on bail by trial court subject to conditions.

Dileep Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54023

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1547 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dileep Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.08 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323, 498A IPC, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 12.07.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶10

2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.08 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323, 498A IPC, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda.

¶11

3. In terms of the FIR registered on 10.01.2019 under Section 376, 504, 506 read with Section 120B IPC, it was alleged that on 09.03.2015, the victim was married to the brother of the applicant and was blessed with a child, however, unfortunately, the husband died on 04.09.2017 and thereafter, after about three months on 10.12.2017, the applicant who is brother-inlaw, committed wrong on her under the threats of killing the daughter. Subsequently, it was stated that the applicant agreed to marry her and this fact was informed to various persons and

¶12

the marriage was agreed to be solemnized, however, on the false pretext of marriage, the jewellery was also taken and physical relations were formed.

¶13

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that on the basis of the allegations levelled on an application being moved, an inquiry was got conducted in which the women police station submitted a report (Annexure - 6) to the effect that it was a case of matrimonial dispute. My attention is also drawn to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein the victim has stated that in case the marriage is solemnized, she is ready and willing to take back the FIR. It is also revealed that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition in which interim protection was granted till the filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet.

¶14

5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶15

6. From the material on record including the charge-sheet, prima-facie, the case appears to be that of matrimonial dispute, as such, considering the said facts, it would be appropriate to pass interim order to the extent that in pursuance of the FIR in question, the applicant Dileep Dubey shall not be arrested till the next date of listing subject to following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(d) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶20

7. Issue notice to respondent no.2.

¶21

8. Steps to serve respondent no.2 be taken within one week.

¶22

9. List on 06.08.2024.

¶23

10. Meanwhile, State shall file its objection." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed. Applicant has co-operated in the

¶24

investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial. He has no criminal antecedent.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. He further submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed.

¶26

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, applicant has no criminal history, he has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶27

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, the accused applicant- Dileep Dubey is directed to surrender before trial court, if he is summoned to face trial for offence in question. The accused applicant shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;

¶29

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶30

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶31

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶32

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶33

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶34

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.

¶36

Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶37

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

Dileep Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile X in Case Crime No 330 of 2023 Thru. His Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mohd. Faiz @ Faiz vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Anil Kumar Pandey vs Union of India Thru. Its Chief Secy. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and 3 Others

Vikas Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Bhannu @ Amarjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 2 Others