Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Dharmendra Tiwari @ Deeru vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|24 August, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31645 of 2018 Applicant :- Dharmendra Tiwari @ Deeru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Dharmendra Tiwari @ Deeru in Case Crime No. 106 of 2018, under Sections 366, 376, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Bindki, District- Fatehpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that admittedly the victim is aged about 20 years as per the F.I.R. and also as per the medical report. It is argued that the F.I.R. was lodged after seven days of the alleged incident against the applicant with the allegation that he had kidnapped the daughter of the informant. Prosecutrix was recovered on 25.05.2018, soon thereafter her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has stated that on account of scolding from her parents she had left her parental home and nobody had kidnapped her. However, subsequently after few days her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has modulated her version and has alleged that the applicant had raped her. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in fact the victim and the applicant were having love affair and they had solemnized marriage in Arya Samaj Temple, copy of the marriage certificate has been annexed as annexure-12 to the affidavit. It is next submitted that no reliance can be placed on the statement of the victim as there are material contradictions in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and she appears to be a consenting party. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 30.05.2018, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant- Dharmendra Tiwari @ Deeru be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018/ Vikas/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Dharmendra Tiwari @ Deeru vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
24 August, 2018
Judges
  • Rajul Bhargava
Advocates
  • Manvendra Singh