Dharmu Bind vs State of U.P.

A.P. Sahi, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and perused the records.

Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant had extended a loan of Rs. 7000/ to the husband of the prosecutrix about which a written complaint was lodged by him on which orders were passed by the S.D.M., Chaka dated 5.11.2007. It is immediately thereafter that the F.I.R. has been lodged inasmuch as the said loan could not be negotiated and the applicant was pressing hard for the recovery of the money. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that there is nothing adverse in the medical report that would establish the commission of the alleged offence. It is also urged that the manner in which the allegations have been made, clearly indicates that it was on account of the aforesaid enmity that the applicant has been falsely implicated, it has been further pointed out that the F.I.R. is delayed and the manner in which the prosecutrix proceeded to get the F.I.R. lodged after going to her parents house along with her husband, indicates that it is an after thought.

Keeping in view the submissions advanced, let the applicant Dharmu Bind involved in case crime No. 22 of 2008, under sections 376, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chakia District Chandauli be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.