Dilip Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10151

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 426 of 2025

Applicant :- Dilip Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No 761 of 2024, under Section 9 of Child Marriage Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad.

¶8

Allegation in the FIR is that applicant's son-Atul forcefully solemnized marriage with informant's minor daughter, who is aged about 14 year, before six months, on threat that applicant's son get her obscene video viral and after marriage the family members of in-laws tortured her and cut her hand, hence, the present FIR has been lodged on 04.09.2024 under the aforesaid section making allegation against 5 named accused persons.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; Applicant is not named in the FIR. Applicant is father of main accused-Atul, have no concern with the alleged incident. In the statement of victim as well as complainant recorded U/s 180 and 183 BNSS, no allegation has been made against the applicant. I.O. has submitted charge sheet against the applicant, thereafter, on 08.11.2024, learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Moradabad issued notice against the applicant U/s 9 of Child Marriage Act, hence the instant anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that applicant is father of the main accused-Atul, who have solemnized marriage with a minor girl on threat to get

¶11

her obscene video viral and after marriage all family members tortured her and cut her hand. Applicant, being head of family, has responsible for all acts of atrocity done with informant's minor daughter. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

¶12

The object of anticipatory bail is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains.

¶13

It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

¶14

Considering the argument advanced by applicant's counsel and learned AGA, it is apparent that applicant is not named in the FIR but he is father of main accused-Atul, who has forcefully solemnized marriage with a minor on threat to get her obscene video viral and after marriage all family members tortured her mentally and physically by cut her hand and applicant, being father of main accused as well as head of family members, is responsible for all kinds of atrocities done with minor girl, as such, applicant cannot be separated and held responsible in the present case, as such, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted.

¶15

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶16

Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Nitin Verma

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilip Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amar Singh @ Amar Singh Kushwaha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhara Singh Alias Ajay Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Saleem Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Joly Alias Netrapal vs State of U.P. and Another

Buddhu Priya Anand Alias Janson and Another vs State of U.P. and Another