Allowed

Kapil @ Dibba v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024NABAIL/10324/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a non-cognizable criminal case. The judge noted that the victim's statements contained variances and no independent witness exists, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Bail was granted on a personal bond with conditions regarding appearance and inducement. The application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each. Conditions imposed include appearance, non-inducement, and non-departure from the

Kapil @ Dibba vs State of Up and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:185511

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10324 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kapil @ Dibba Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Shantam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 B. N. S. S. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 342 of 2024, under Sections 191 (1), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 117 (2) and 190 (1) BNS, Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh.

¶8

Initially the F. I. R. was lodged by the father of the victim against unknown persons. The name of the applicant surfaced for the first time in the confessional statement of the co-accused, Kallu and Lukka. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the informant and victim in their statements recorded under Section 180 B. N. S. S. have not named the applicant and they have only reiterated the version of the F. I. R. However the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B. N. S. S. changed her version alleging sexual assault against Saurabh and Shivam but she has not named the applicant and thus, the variance in both the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B. N. S. S. does not inspire any confidence about the occurrence. There is no independent witness of the incident. The co-accused Kallu Khan has been granted bail by the Court of Sessions vide order dated 4.9.2024. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required in this very case. The chargesheet has not been filed in this case. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Hence, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on

¶11

merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant Kapil @ Dibba involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶14

(ii) 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;

¶15

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶17

The application stands allowed.

¶18

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 26.11.2024

¶20

¶21

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kapil @ Dibba v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil @ Dibba v. State of Up 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

Shriniwas vs State of U.P. through Principal secratary Home government of U.P. at Lucknow

Arun vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Najim vs State of Up and Another

Mohit Sachan vs State of U.P.

Samir Alias Sultan Alias Abu Sufian vs State of U.P.

Affan Alias Shahanshah and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others