Allowed

Dhiraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024BAIL/222/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 67 IT Act, court allowed bail noting the relationship began on false pretext of marriage, victim confessed love, and applicant had no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each subject to conditions.

Dhiraj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23630

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 222 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arunendra Nath Mishra,Archana Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharm Trivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

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

¶7

No one appears on behalf of the respondent complainant.

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that a few days ago, the applicant had called the informant and they used to talk with each other and on the false pretext of marriage, physical relations were formed in between them and certain photographs were also taken. It was stated that thereafter the marriage of the victim was solemnised elsewhere and the applicant used to threaten her that he would make the entire video viral, which according to the informant was made viral which resulted into humiliation of the informant. It was also stated that the applicant was threatening the victim. A similar statement was also made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the medical on record does not suggest or support any use of force and admittedly, the relationship continued in between the victim and the applicant although on the false pretext of marriage, the statement of the victim recorded during medical examination also reveals that they were in love. It was also recorded that on 4.7.2023, the victim had gone to Delhi on her own and stayed with the applicant for five days and now the applicant was blackmailing the victim by use of photographs and videos. The tentative age of the victim is around 21 years. The applicant is in jail since 29.9.2023 having no criminal history, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. strongly opposed the prayer for bail by arguing that the videos and photographs were made viral by the applicant after the victim had got engaged elsewhere which demonstrates the state of mind of the applicant, and thus the bail application should be rejected.

¶11

Considering the fact that the entire case is based upon a false pretext of marriage which continued for a long time as also admitted by the victim before the medical authorities, a case for bail is made out particularly the fact that the applicant is in jail since 29.9.2023 having no criminal antecedents 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 any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Dhiraj Kumar be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.334 of 2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Kothi, District Barabanki on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.3.2024/Shukla

¶18

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

Dhiraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhiraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

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

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

Mohd. Akeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4OTHERS

Chhotu Alias Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Shishupal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others