Allowed

Dharmendra@ Patariya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2021BAIL/3596/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed on merits to an applicant facing prosecution for charges including IPC 376, citing an inimical relationship with the informant and prolonged judicial delay as factors.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on a personal bond without sureties until normal court functioning is restored, subject to additional conditions regarding attendance and trial timeline.

Dharmendra@ Patariya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3596 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmendra@ Patariya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipin Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant connected virtually and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record. Shri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant has failed to connect virtually.

¶6

Perusal of order-sheet shows that the present bail application was filed on 22.1.2021 and since then for one reason or other, the matter is being lingered, thus, with the aid and help of learned A.G.A., the Court proposes to decide the bail application on merits.

¶7

By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.153 of 2020, u/s 323, 354, 506, 452, 504, 376 I.P.C., P.S.-Chandpur, District-Fatehpur, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 13.9.2020.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the informant of the case Km Ranu was having an inimical relationship with the applicant and others with regard to some landed property. On three earlier occasions too, she has lodged three criminal cases i.e. Case Crime No.112 of 2019, u/s 506 I.P.C. dated 19.7.2019, thereafter Case Crime No.88 of 2020 u/s 504, 506 I.P.C. dated 28.5.2020 and lastly Case Crime No.123 of 2020, u/s 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. dated 19.7.2020. The applicant was common feature in all aforesaid three cases. It is further submitted by learned counsel that this goes to show that the applicant and the informant are at daggers drawn from 2019. The inimical relationship is a dual edged weapon which cuts both the ways and in the same spirit the present F.I.R. was got registered by the same informant Km Ranu on 5.9.2020 for the incident said to have taken place on 4.9.2020 against the applicant and three others, with the allegation that they have physically assaulted upon the injured/informant and subjected her for

¶9

"fingering" and pressing her private organ. The statements of the victim u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are consistent against the applicant but strange feature was that she has declined herself for her internal medical examination so as to substantiate the allegation of fingering upon her. It is further contended by the counsel that in the light of the earlier background of the case where the informant has already lodged three FIRs against the applicant and instant is the fourth FIR with more serious allegation just to put the applicant behind the bars using her gender. The applicant is in jail since 13.9.2020 having undergone for more than nine months behind the bars.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the statements of the victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are consistent against the applicant and there are physical injuries over the person of the injured, though seems to be simple in nature and on non-vital part of body.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Dharmendra @ Patariya , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST

¶15

HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶16

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶17

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Since the bail application has been decided under extraordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶22

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶23

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶24

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶25

4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶26

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶27

Order Date :- 5.7.2021 M. Kumar

Dharmendra@ Patariya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra@ Patariya 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

Danveer Vs State of U.P.

Kashish Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumari Vs State of Up

Pramod Yadav @ Rajnish Vs State of U.P.

Sahid and Another Vs State of U.P.