Allowed

Dhaniram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2018BAIL/4285/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Dhaniram in a criminal matter where he was alleged to have set someone ablaze. The court considered the nature of allegations, custody period, and counsel's submissions, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to five specific conditions including not tampering with evidence.

Dhaniram Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4285 of 2018 Applicant :- Dhaniram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶4

According to prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged by the informant against two accused persons namely Smt. Gyanwati (wife of injured) and Dhaniram ( sadu of injured) alleging that there was bad relationship between Smt. Gyanwati and Dhaniram; they poured kerosene and set his ablaze. Injured Parwat received 40 percent burn injury.

¶5

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegations against the applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present matter. F.I.R. was lodged after 14 days of the incident. Applicant has admitted the injured in hospital. Applicant has previous criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 13.10.2017 (more than three and half months) and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶8

Let the applicant Dhaniram involved in Case Crime No. 152 of 2017, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Uldan, District Jhansi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶9

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶10

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶11

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶12

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶13

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.2.2018//A. Singh

Dhaniram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaniram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Ramim @ Sheru Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghunath Vs State of U.P.