Allowed

Dharmendra Dwivedi @ Saurabh Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024CRLA/1850/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 1850 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appellant's bail appeal against a rejection order. The court set aside the impugned order dated 23.05.2024 and granted bail upon the appellant furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to various conditions of appearing and cooperating in the trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail order set aside; appellant released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of like amount.

Dharmendra Dwivedi @ Saurabh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71937

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1850 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Dharmendra Dwivedi @ Saurabh Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akash Dikshit Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arpit Gupta,K A Dhruv,Pawan Kumar Pathak

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Case called out twice. However, no-one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2/victim despite the names of Shri K.A. Dhruv, Advocate, Shri Arpit Gupta, Advocate and Shri Pawan Kumar Pathak, Advocate have been printed in the cause list as counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶7

In the aforesaid background of the case, this Court proceeds to hear the appeal seeking bail under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short 'Act 1989') on merits.

¶8

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

¶9

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Act 1989 against the impugned order dated 23.05.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.995 of 2024, arising out of Crime No.0059 of 2022, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of Act 1989, Police Station Purwa, District Unnao.

¶10

The earlier prayer to release the appellant on bail was declined by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1204 of 2022 (Dharmendra Dwivedi alias Saurabh Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P.).

¶11

It is stated that this Court while passing the order dated 04.07.2023 took note of the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation including the statements made by the

¶12

victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and directed the trial court to conclude the trial with most expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties.

¶13

It is further stated that the victim before the trial court has already been examined as would appear from the copy of statement of the victim annexed with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure S.A.1.

¶14

It is further stated that on conjoint reading of the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and statement of the victim recorded before the trial court as P.W.1 would show that the case of the prosecution against the appellant is not intact.

¶15

It is further stated that in view of the statement of the victim, which has already been recorded before the trial court, there is no possibility of influencing the main witness of the prosecution.

¶16

It is further stated that in fact it is a case of consent and when the husband of the victim returned from Kuwait where he was serving for livelihood, he came to know about the relationship of the victim with the appellant. Thereafter to save the matrimonial life, the FIR making allegations against the appellant was lodged in which it has been stated that on pretext of providing job in the Bank, the appellant demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the victim and in response the victim provided Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant, and thereafter established physical relation with her and the video clips of the same were also prepared. However, the entire story is bogus in view of the fact that during investigation the Investigating Officer did not find any video clips and as such charge sheet was not filed in the offences indicated in Information Technology Act, 2000. The proof related to amount provided by the victim to the appellant is also not available with the prosecution.

¶17

It is further stated that the appellant having no criminal history, is in jail since 30.03.2022 and almost two and half years have elapsed and possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. Thus the appellant is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶19

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., including the statement of the informant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly the allegations against the appellant in FIR and statements of the victim, according to which prima facie the prosecution case is not intact, as also the period of incarceration and also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶21

Order dated 23.05.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.995 of 2024, arising out of Crime No.0059 of 2022, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (V) of Act 1989, Police Station Purwa, District Unnao is set aside.

¶22

Let appellant Dharmendra Dwivedi alias Saurabh Dwivedi , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶23

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶24

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶25

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶26

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶27

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.

¶28

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶29

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶30

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶31

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶32

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶33

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 Anand/-

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Dwivedi @ Saurabh Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Dwivedi @ Saurabh Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Sonu and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ram Nayan Verma Vs State of U.P.

Jay Raj Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Alias Kallu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Piyush Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mukesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others