Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 27 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95645
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5001 of 2024
Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Abrar Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Abrar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0392 of 2023, under Sections 376, 120-B I.P.C., 2008, P.S.- Gazipur, District- Fatehpur.
3. As per allegation made in the FIR, marriage of the informant was fixed with co-accused Ajay @ Raju thereafter, co-accused started visiting the house of the applicant. The date of marriage was to be fixed, father of Ajay was fell ill and later died, due to which the marriage got delayed. It is alleged that co-accused Ajay in the planned manner called the informant and went to Fatehpur city at 02:00 pm and raped her forcefully and took obscene photos and said that now the marriage has took place. The informant kept quite due to public shame but after few days co-accused Ajay demanded Rs.3,00,000/- cash and a bullet motorcycle in the dowry and in case he did not do the same, the will make the photos viral on internet.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The incident took place on 8.8.2023 whereas the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation on 28.12.2023 i.e. about four months of the alleged incident but no plausible explanation regarding delay has been mentioned. There is major contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that only allegation against the applicant is that he has shut the door from outside however, the informant/victim has not made any allegation against the applicant in the FIR. He submits that investigation of the case is still going on and till date no charge sheet has been filed. He further submits that co-accused Ajay @ Raju has already been granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.3.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.7981 of 2024. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Dharmendra Singh, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vii) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
8. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial, expeditiously, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from today.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 27.5.2024 // Krishna*/Ajeet
