Dismissed

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2018BAIL/31491/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused bail to the applicant in a case involving Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 IPC, due to concealment of criminal history in his affidavit. The applicant was directed to move a fresh application if the trial is not concluded within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused. Trial to be concluded within six months. Fresh bail application permissible if deadline missed.

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31491 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Shukla,Ajay Kumar,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant in the Court today is kept on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State, Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 67 of 2016, under Section 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Kishani, District- Mainpuri, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the F.I.R. itself, the only role which has been assigned to the applicant is that although he had fired shots at the deceased but had not caused any injury. The role of causing firearm injury to the deceased has been specifically assigned to the co-accused Raju @ Bantu and Sanjeev. Hence, the applicant who is in jail since 21.03.2016, is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of this trial.

¶9

Per contra Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A submitted that apart from the case in hand, the applicant is accused in another case namely Case Crime No. 298 of 2015 u/s 307 I.P.C. However, in the affidavit accompanying the bail application, he has not disclosed the aforesaid fact but has rather falsely stated on oath that the applicant has no criminal history. Hence, the applicant having not approached this Court with clean hands, his bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶10

In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has disclosed the criminal history in the supplementary affidavit and hence, there is no material concealment on his part.

¶11

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on

¶12

record, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail in view of the material concealment made by him in the affidavit accompanying his bail application regarding his criminal history.

¶13

The prayer for bail is refused.

¶14

However considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned trial Judge is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. In case the trial of the applicant is not concluded within the period stipulated hereinabove, the applicant may move fresh bail application before this Court.

¶15

Subject to aforesaid directions, this bail application stands finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.7.2018 KS

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bramh Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kant and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhanesari Magar Vs State of U.P.

Roop Singh Vs State

Reeta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vanshidhar Kharwar Vs Union of India Thru Intelligence Officer N.C.B.