# Udai Veer Singh v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 503
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-25
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 41048 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/udai-veer-singh-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-46108
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
-
Sections
452,406,376,504,506application-grant
of
bail-prosecutrix
lodged false and fabricated FIR against
the applicant-she developed relationship
with the applicant just to fulfil her lust
and extract money-Also she stayed with
the
applicant
in
Jaya
Place
Hotel,
Dhaulpur,Rajasthan with her own free
will-husband of the prosecutrix did not
defend her as she was a consenting partywhen the applicant retired he refused to
fulfill the lust of prosecutrix, then she
lodged FIR.(Para 2 to 4)
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The bail application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(2018) 3
SCC 22

## Text

1 All. Udai Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
503
BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY
MAKE
ALL
POSSIBLE
EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO
CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE
RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

27. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

28. 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.

29. Since the bail application has been
decided
under
extra-ordinary
circumstances, thus in the interest of justice
following additional conditions are being
imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be
released on bail forthwith. Needless to
mention that these additional conditions are
imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

(a). The applicant shall be enlarged
on bail on execution of personal bond
without sureties till normal functioning of
the courts is restored. The accused will
furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the
court below within a month after normal
functioning of the courts are restored.

(b). The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.

(c). The computer generated copy of
such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

(d).
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad and shall make a
declaration of such verification in writing.

29. However, it is made clear that any
willful violation of above conditions by the
applicant, shall have serious repercussion
on his/her bail so granted by this Court and
the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail,
after recording the reasons for doing so, in
the given case of any of the condition
mentioned above.
----------
(2021)01ILR A503
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 41048 of 2020

Udai Veer Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Sri Krishna Kant
Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A., Sri S.P.S. Chauhan

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
-
Sections
452,406,376,504,506application-grant
of
bail-prosecutrix
lodged false and fabricated FIR against
the applicant-she developed relationship
with the applicant just to fulfil her lust
and extract money-Also she stayed with
the
applicant
in
Jaya
Place
Hotel,
Dhaulpur,Rajasthan with her own free
will-husband of the prosecutrix did not
defend her as she was a consenting partywhen the applicant retired he refused to
fulfill the lust of prosecutrix, then she
lodged FIR.(Para 2 to 4)
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The bail application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(2018) 3
SCC 22

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K. Shukla, learned
counsel for the applicant as well learned
A.G.A. appearing for the State and S.P.S.
Chauhan, learned counsel for O.P. No.2
and perused the record.

2. Applicant has moved the present
bail application seeking bail in Case Crime
No.358 of 2020, under Sections 452, 406,
376, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Jagdishpura,
District Agra.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case due to
ulterior motive with the intention to harass
the applicant and to defame him in the
society. As per F.I.R. version as lodged by
the victim on 13.07.2020 at 18:50 hours is
that the Dharmendra Singh Parihar husband
of the victim was doing service away from
the city and the prosecutrix was living at
home alone with her two children. The
applicant was visitor to her house and so
that was entangled in her evil design. She
wanted to purchase a house for which the
applicant was taking her hither and thither.
On 16.10.2017 the applicant came to her
house at 9-00 P.M. and had brought with
him a bottle of cold drink and made her to
drink
due
to
which
she
became
unconscious and the applicant committed
rape upon her. Upon becoming conscious
she found her clothes scattered and on
being annoyed with the applicant showed
her video clip on his mobile and threatened
to viral it on internet if she had gone to
police to lodge F.I.R. and the applicant also
got her land at village sold and usurped the
amount of sale consideration. Thereafter he
got a house purchased and by making
forgery
he
got
recorded
his
name
mentioned in place of the name of her
husband. Thereafter on 02.06.2020 at 8-00
threatened the prosecutrix dragged her on
the bed and committed rape upon her and
fled away from there. As per the statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix
reiterated the F.I.R. version. As per the
statement of the prosecutrix under Section
164 Cr.P.C. she had stated that she was of
28 years of age and had studied upto Class
10th. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that medical examination was
refused by the prosecutrix and she had not
received any external injury.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that there is vast contradiction in
the F.I.R. and statements of the prosecutrix
recorded under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. She is major and an ambitious and
corrupt lady and due to her conduct her
husband had left her and to fulfill her lust
the prosecutrix has firstly developed
relation with one Prem Kumar the friend of
applicant
and
subsequently
with
the
applicant. The prosecutrix was regularly
extracting money from the applicant by one
or another pretext. Though the prosecutirx
had shown herself the wife of Dharmendra
Singh Parihar but he did not come forward
to defend her due to her illegal activity. The
Investigating Officer contacted the husband
of the prosecutrix on his telephone and he
had clearly stated that he had not gone to
his house as his wife had developed
relation with Fauji i.e. the applicant. He
further submits that the prosecutrix is a
very clever lady and she had developed the
relations with the applicant only to extract
money. The prosecutrix has visited with the
1 All. Udai Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
505
applicant
at
Dhaulpur
Rajasthan
on
31.08.2017 and stayed there at Jaya Place
Hotel, Dhaulpur with her own free will
which shows that she was a consenting
party but when the applicant retired from
service on 31.05.2020 and refused to fulfill
the lust of prosecutrix, she lodged the
instant F.I.R. with false and fabricated
facts.

5. 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 and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. It has also been pointed
out that the accused is not having any
criminal history and he is in jail since
21.09.2020 and that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no
likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer
for bail.

7. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence and the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and
another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of
the view that the applicant may be enlarged
on bail.

8. The prayer for bail is granted. The
application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant-Udai Veer Singh
involved in Case Crime No.358 of 2020,
under Sections 452, 406, 376, 504 and 506
I.P.C., P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra, be
released on bail on executing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any
attempt to tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally
appear on each and every date fixed in the
court below and his personal presence shall
not be exempted unless the court itself
deems it fit to do so in the interest of
justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in
the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in
any criminal activity or commission of any
crime after being released on bail.

(5)The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(6)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.

10. It may be observed that in the
event of any breach of the aforesaid
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conditions, the court below shall be at
liberty to proceed for the cancellation of
applicant's bail.

11. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.
----------
(2021)01ILR A506
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 45784 of 2020

Ajeet Chaudhary ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ajeet Srivastava, Sri Raghuvansh Misra

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860-Section 354 r/w Section 3(1)Da,
3(1)Dha
of
SC/ST
Act,
1989
&
Prevention
of
Children
from
sexual
offences(POCSO) Act, 2012-Section 7/8inordinate delay in FIR-FIR was a result
of
trivial
altercation
between
the
parties-intention
was
to
falsely
implicate the applicant as the FIR
lodged six days after much deliberationmaterial contradictions in the statement
of victim u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.-no
independent witness of the alleged
incident -school certificate relied to
establish
the
age
of
victim
is
a
fabricated document-co-accused already
granted bail-no criminal history of the
applicant. (Para 1 to 80)
The bail application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Hussain & anr. Vs U.O.I. (2020) 5 SCC 702

2. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Mah.
& ors.(2020) SCC OnLine 964

3. Pramod Kumar Ray & ors. Vs St. of Ori.
(2017) SCC OnLine Ori 349

4. Dilip Kumar Sharma & ors. Vs St. of M.P.
(1976) 1 SCC 560

5. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors. Vs Public
Prosecutor,HC of A.P.(1978) 1 SCC 240

6. Hussain & anr. Vs U.O.I. (2017) 5 SCC 702

7. Emperor Vs H.L. Hutchinson & anr. (1931) AIR All 356

8. Ranjitsing Brahmjeetsing Sharma Vs St. of
Mah. (2005) 5 SCC 294

9. Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs U.O.I. & anr.
(2018) 11 SCC 1

10. Maneka Gandhi Vs U.O.I. (1978) 4 SCC 494

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The narrative is being structured in the
following framework to facilitate the discussion:

I.
Defining the controversy and its
origins
II.
Submissions of learned counsels
III.
Right of bail
IV.
SC & ST Act- Relevant provisions:
Discussion
V.
Final Directions
VI.
Review
of
Compliance
of
Directions
VII. Consideration of Bail Application
on merits

I. Defining the controversy and its
origins