Allowed

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2025CRLA/1008/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against rejection of bail in a rape and SC/ST Act case where the FIR was lodged after delay and three co-accused were exonerated. Holding that a case for bail was made out and the impugned order was infirm, the court allowed the appeal and released the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to listed conditions.

Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141281

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1008 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also present.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Kaushambi, in Case Crime No. 281 of 2024, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sandeepanghat, District Kaushambi.

¶8

Initially, the FIR was lodged on 17.10.2024, under Sections 376D, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act with the allegations that four accused persons committed rape with the victim. But after investigation three accused persons have been exonerated and only applicant has been charge sheeted under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellantapplicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 23.05.2024 but the FIR was lodged on 17.10.2024 and no satisfactory explanation has been given regarding delay. It is further submitted that in the medical examination report, no mark of injury seen over the body and according to the doctor no definite opinion about rape can be given. It is further submitted that victim a mature lady aged about 30 years. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 30.11.2024 having no

¶10

criminal history.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said fact.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶15

Let the appellant Dinesh Kumar , involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶20

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 RavindraKSingh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. 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

Mukesh Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrabhan Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxman and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Komal Kasera vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ratnesh Goyel through Proprietor Madan Mohan Lal Gopal Chand vs State of U.P. and Another

Jugal Kishore vs State of U.P. and 8 Others