Dilip Pasi @ Dilip Kumar Bangali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11374

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1222 of 2025

Applicant :- Dilip Pasi @ Dilip Kumar Bangali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Nazmul Hasan,Shiv Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Nazmul Hasan learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nikhil Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the the applicant is in jail since 23.09.2024, in FIR/ Case Crime No. 330 of 2024, under Sections 87 & 70(1) BNS, Police Station- Sakran, District- Sitapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein for the alleged incident dated 10.09.2024, the FIR has been lodged on 13.09.2024 without explaining the delay. The specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant who is the sole accused, however, while recording her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation of rape, rather she has stated that her parents were compelling her to marry with a person with whom she was not agreeable to marry, therefore, she had gone with the present applicant who happens to be the brother-in-law of her, with whom she started living for quite some time but as soon as she came to know that her parents lodged an FIR against the applicant, she returned. She refused to get herself medically examined. While recording her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she levelled allegation against the coaccused Rohit Kumar and the present applicant. After recording the aforesaid statement, her medical examination was conducted by the doctor and the opinion came that there is no sign of use of force and no forceful penetration injury was found, however, forceful sexual assault may not be ruled out. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

¶9

Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that if he is enlarged on bail, he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all

¶10

terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that coaccused namely Rohit Kumar has been granted bail vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 12718 of 2024. He submits that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that for the alleged incident dated 10.09.2024, the FIR has been lodged on 13.09.2024 without explaining the delay; while recording her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation of rape; coaccused namely Rohit Kumar has been granted bail vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 12718 of 2024; charge sheet has been filed; the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Dilip Pasi @ Dilip Kumar Bangali be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶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 229A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶18

(iii) 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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall

¶19

initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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.

¶21

(v) The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶22

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 (Manoj K.)

¶24

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

Dilip Pasi @ Dilip Kumar Bangali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Pasi @ Dilip Kumar Bangali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anupam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jagapatiya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Munesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shivdayal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Abhay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and Others

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