Allowed

Dheeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2024BAIL/4406/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail for the applicant charged with abducting and kidnapping. The court observed lack of apprehension regarding flight or witness tampering and directed release on bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-interference.

Dheeraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32208

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4406 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dheeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Shafeeque,Mohammad Waheed Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.417 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Para District- Lucknow.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶9

It is urged that the applicant is alleged to have enticed the minor daughter of the complainant. It is further stated that the victim herself had given her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. A copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-3 and 4 wherein it has been indicated that the victim on her own volition had accompanied the applicant. In her statement, she stated that she had married the applicant, however, this fact was not reiterated in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C but the fact remains that she clearly stated that she had left along with the applicant on her own volition and that the applicant in no manner had behaved irresponsibly with the victim.

¶10

It is further pointed out that the applicant and the victim were in relationship and since the relationship did not go well with the parents of the victim hence, the FIR was lodged against the applicant.

¶11

It is also urged that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 24.12.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Dheeraj involved in the above-mentioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iv) 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.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶21

framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.4.2024 Harshita

¶24

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

Dheeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Sajid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Devi Prasad Mishra vs M/S Nayara Energy Limited (Earlier Essar Oil Limited) Thru Auth. Signatory/ Managing Director

Nishant Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Dharm Raj and Others vs Shiv Prasad and Others