Allowed

Dharmu Kumar Bind @ Dharmu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2021CRLA/1868/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a criminal appeal and set aside the order rejecting the bail application of appellants charged with offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, ordering their release on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellants released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each each of Rs. 2500/-.

Dharmu Kumar Bind @ Dharmu and Another Vs State of U.P… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1868 of 2021 Appellant :- Dharmu Kumar Bind @ Dharmu And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kashi Nath Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chandra Dutt

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

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

¶5

Counter affidavits filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants Dharmu Kumar Bind @ Dharmu and Rahul Gupta with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 27.10.2020, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghazipur, rejecting the bail application of the accused-appellants, in Case Crime No. 287 of 2020, under Sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Nandganj, District Ghazipur.

¶7

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the present criminal appeal has been filed on the ground that the bail application of the appellants has been rejected without properly appreciating the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that because of political and local rivalry, the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The court below has committed gross illegality in passing the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellants are entitled to be released on bail. The appellants have no previous criminal history and they have been in jail since 02.10.2020.

¶8

The first information report version is that the incident took place on 29.09.2020 and on the same day, the first information

¶9

report was lodged by the victim herself with the allegation that while she was coming after attending coaching class, at about 05:00 P.M. in the evening, the accused persons who have been named in the first information report started misbehaving with her and went away after abusing her by caste relating words and giving threatening.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer and have submitted that the said offence has been committed by the appellants against a woman of SC community and as such, the offence is serious and considering this fact, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application.

¶11

Considered the submissions of both the sides, it appears that the appellants are in jail from the last about ten months and the offence which has been alleged against them is an offence under Section 354 I.P.C. It means that the allegation is that they assaulted the victim with intention to outrage her modesty, which shall be finally determined at the time of trial. The appellants have no criminal history and they are in jail from the last about ten months.

¶12

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeals are liable to be allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 27.10.2020, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghazipur rejecting the bail application of the accusedappellants, in Case Crime No. 287 of 2020, under Sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Nandganj, District Ghazipur, is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellants namely Dharmu Kumar Bind @ Dharmu and Rahul Gupta are released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The appellants will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that appellants are abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶16

(ii) The appellants will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) The appellants will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellants to prison.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.7.2021 sailesh

Dharmu Kumar Bind @ Dharmu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmu Kumar Bind @ Dharmu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mubarak Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdhul Mateen Vs State of U.P.

Dhananjay Singh Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhanshu Srivastava Vs State of U.P.