Allowed

Dheeraj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024CRLA/3239/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal against an order denying bail. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents stating that false promise of marriage under Section 376 IPC requires specific elements missing in the FIR. The appellant was released on bail with personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail order set aside. Appellant released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties with additional conditions.

Dheeraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69969

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3239 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Dheeraj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arpan Prakash Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Arpan Prakash Srivastava, Advocate, on behalf of complainant/opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant-complainant and perused the record.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 7108 of 2024 (Dheeraj Singh vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 340 of 2024 under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Gazipur, District-Lucknow.

¶9

While pressing the present appeal seeking bail, it is stated that appellant and opposite party No.2/victim were in love affair for the last three and half years and the appellant initially as also at this stage of the proceedings is ready to solemnized the marriage with the opposite party No.2/victim, however, on account of some unavoidable circumstances, the marriage could not be solemnized and therefore being annoyed the opposite party No. 2/victim lodged the FIR against the appellant making allegations therein against the appellant that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the appellant establish physical relationship with the opposite party No.2/victim.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value even then the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 7 SCC; and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC

¶11

OnLine SC 2110 .

¶12

He further submitted that the chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case are extremely bleak in view of the law related to establishing relationship on the pretext of false promise of marriage.

¶13

He also stated that as per the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC, the allegation should be to the effect that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry and from the F.I.R., it reflects that the said contents in its true spirit are missing.

¶14

He lastly submitted that all the aforesaid aspects of the case were not considered by the trial court, as such, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Sri Arpan Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant-complainant stated that the opposite party No.2 is also ready to solemnized the marriage with the appellant.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

¶17

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶18

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 22.08.2024 as also the submission that the victim was in affair with the appellant and physical relations were established with her consent and also chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶19

The the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 7108 of 2024 (Dheeraj Singh vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 340 of 2024 under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Gazipur, District-Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

¶20

Let the appellant- Dheeraj Singh 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 :-

¶21

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶22

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶23

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶24

(v) The appellant 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 17.10.2024 Vinay/-

¶31

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

Dheeraj Singh 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?

Dheeraj Singh 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

Rohit Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Smt. Komal Thru. His Husband Sunil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Krishna Dwivedi @ Karantoo and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar Singh and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Radhey Shyam Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ajay Kumar Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another