Allowed

Dharm Raj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2018BAIL/48478/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application by Dharm Raj, accused of assault causing death. The applicant argued that a co-accident had already been granted bail and that there was no evidence distinguishing his role. The High Court allowed the bail application, releasing the applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to standard conditions.

Dharm Raj Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48478 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dharm Raj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Advocate on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

According to prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against eight accused persons, namely Dharmraj Yadav, Haribansh Yadav, Prince Yadav, Nikka Yadav, Harishchaandra Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Vikas Yadav and Raju Yadav alleging that on 7.8.2018 they assaulted by lathies, dandas and knives to Kanchan. He received two injuries on head, resultantly died. No incised wound was found on the body of the injured.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that coaccused namely Haribansh Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 3.12.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46050 of 2018, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of coaccused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. Applicant applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2018 (more than four months); having no criminal history; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; general role has been assigned to all accused, it is not clear who is author of injury received on head of the injured; there is no independent witness and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and general role has been assigned.

¶11

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

¶12

allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Dharm Raj involved in Case Crime No. 132 of 2018, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 304 IPC, Police Station-Didarganj, District-Azamgarh 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:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 18.12.2018 A. Singh

Dharm Raj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharm Raj 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

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Arvind and 5 Others

Dr. Pawan Choudhary Vs State of U.P.

Vidyadhari Vs State of U.P.

Prabhu Chauhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.