Dayanand Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65901

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14109 of 2025

Applicant :- Dayanand Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeja Srivastava,Shubham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shubham Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.51 of 2025, under Section 64 B.N.S., Police Station Sen Paschim Para, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶10

The person bearing mobile no.8299538152 is stated to have barged into the house of the victim and committed rape with her on 18.02.2025 at about 5:30 p.m.

¶11

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶12

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

The FIR is delayed by about 5 hours and 15 minutes and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶14

As per medical report, the victim has stated before the doctor that she had episodes of bleeding 15 days before the incident, as such, she might have got some problem as she was pregnant by 5 months and has falsely implicated the applicant.

¶15

The doctor who had undertaken the treatment of the victim Shruti Gupta has been examined and she has stated that she had treated 33 years old victim from 22.02.2025 to 25.02.2025 and again from 27.02.2025 to 03.03.2025 and then on 04.03.2025 as

¶16

the victim had started bleeding and her pregnancy was terminated as she had give birth to a baby and the baby could survive for only one hour and fifteen minutes and she was operated upon by her.

¶17

The said injury cannot be assigned to the applicant as had the applicant caused any injury to the victim, the same would have been observed at the time of medical examination dated 19.02.2025 at about 3:00 a.m.

¶18

The FIR is prompt. There is no possibility of any interpolation in it and the applicant has simply been made an accused on the basis of his mobile number.

¶19

The name of the applicant has come up in the statement of the informant himself.

¶20

There is no test identification parade of the applicant as per Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

¶21

It is a clear-cut case of false implication.

¶22

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.03.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶23

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

¶24

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

¶25

CONCLUSION:

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR was instituted the same night of the incident and no injury was observed by the doctor at the time of medical examination of the victim the same night coupled with the fact that the victim was major aged about 33 years old, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶27

Let the applicant- Dayanand Chaudhary involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶28

amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶29

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶30

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C/351 B.N.S.S. 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.

¶31

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶32

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶33

Order Date :- 29.4.2025

¶34

(Ravi Kant)

¶35

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dayanand Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayanand Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

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