Allowed

Dharm Singh @ Dharmu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2021BAIL/37150/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant who was falsely implicated with no specific role assigned. The court found the allegations baseless and noted an unexplained delay in the FIR, allowing the applicant to be released on a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail requiring a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount furnished to the trial court.

Dharm Singh @ Dharmu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37150 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dharm Singh @ Dharmu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 131 of 2021, under Section 323, 504, 325, 308 of I.P.C. registered at P.S.- Chhajlet, District- Moradabad.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is unexplained delay of fifteen days in lodging the F.I.R. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. There is no independent witness in the present case. The allegations levelled against the applicant are fully false and baseless and case under aforementioned Sections is not made out against him. There is no criminal history of applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.07.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the facts as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Nature of accusation, evidence collected by I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of the accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered.

¶10

Perusal of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the injured Atar Singh reveals that the injured has specifically stated in his statement that Rakesh had assaulted on his head due to which he sustained injuries on his head. No specific role has been assigned to applicant.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that no specific role has been assigned to

¶12

applicant, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Dharm Singh @ Dharmu involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶17

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

¶18

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.12.2021 VPS

Dharm Singh @ Dharmu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharm Singh @ Dharmu 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

Murari Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Ram Aasrey Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sahzad Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P.