SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dhirendra Pandey vs State Of U.P. & 2 Ors. on 16 October, 2019


?Court No. – 16

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 1421 of 2019

Appellant :- Dhirendra Pandey

Respondent :- State Of U.P. 2 Ors.

Counsel for Appellant :- Ramakar Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ved Prakash Yadav

Hon’ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. Bail application of the accussed-appellant has been rejected by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, District Sultanpur vide impugned order dated 16.07.2019 in crime no.175 of 2019, under Sections 377 IPC, 5/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and 3(2)V of the Scheduled Castes and SectionScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Akhand Nagar, District Sultanpur.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, accussed-appellant filed present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and SectionScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before this Court seeking bail.

4. According to prosecution case, on 18.05.2019 at about 11:00 AM accussed-appellant has committed forcibly unnatural intercourse with the minor son aged about 14 years of Informant Smt. Kesa Devi. FIR got registered by Informant on the same day in the Police Station concerned.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and he has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village rivalry. It is further submitted that there is no external or internal injury in medical report and there is no public witness. Informant herself is not an eye witness. Appellant is in jail since 19.05.2019. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant’s fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and prayed that appeal be allowed.

6. Per contra, appeal has been opposed from the side of opposite parties but factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant could not be disputed and it has been submitted that it is an offence against society and accussed is named in the FIR. He has committed unnatural intercourse with minor victim and he is not entitled for bail, therefore, the appeal may be rejected.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of appellant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, evidence collected by I.O. during investigation, medical report of victim, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., allegation levelled against the accussed-appellant and without commenting upon the merit of the case, appellant deserves bail.

8. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.

9. Let appellant Dhirendra Pandey be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

i. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

ii. The appellant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

iii. During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

10. In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

11. However, it is provided that Trial Court shall proceed the trial in view of Section 309 Cr.P.C., expedite and conclude the trial within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment. In case, trial is not decided in the stipulated time, Trial Court shall inform this Court explaining entire circumstances and seek further time, otherwise it shall be treated as disobedience of the order of this Court.

Order Date :- 16.10.2019

I.A. Siddiqui



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation