Dismissed

Dharmveer Sahni v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2021CRLA/3720/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected criminal appeal against bail refusal, upholding impugned order due to lack of FIR delay and non-applicability of parity based on distinct roles, while directing trial court for speedy disposal in two years.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial within two years from production of certified copy of this order.

Dharmveer Sahni Vs State of Up and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3720 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Dharmveer Sahni Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akhil Ranjan,Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, Sri Akhil Ranjan learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Sri Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

By means of the present criminal under Section 141(2) SC/ST Act is targeted against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur whereby the Bail Application No. 169 of 2020 was rejected.

¶7

Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant heard at length. The Court for the sake of brevity has formulated the submissions as follows :-

¶8

(1) Ante timed FIR

¶9

(2) Delay in lodging the FIR

¶10

(3) The presence of eye witness is doubtful.

¶11

(4) Co-accused Ajay Nishad and Shashi Kapoor were admitted on bail by coordinate Bench of this court and the case of the appellant stands on similar footing and as such the principle of parity were canvassed and lastly...

¶12

(5) Since the deceased was himself carrying a bad name and a long criminal history of 32 cases and he has died on account of his animosity.

¶13

Let us examine all these contentions one by one.

¶14

So far as the delay in filing the FIR is concerned,

¶15

the date of FIR is 22.11.2019 at 15.30 p.m. on same day. In this transaction four persons were named as an assailant and the applicant was attributed the role of actual firing upon the deceased causing injury to one Ravindra.

¶16

Taking into account that this is broad day light incident, there could not be any mistake regarding the identity of the assailants and the police station is 10 kms far from the place of the incident. I find that there is no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.

¶17

Since there is specific allegation in the prompt FIR that specific role has been attributed to the present appellant who has given a lethal blow upon the Ravindra Dadhe.

¶18

I have keenly perused the post mortem report, it is clear that the dimensions of those injuries suggestive of the fact that only one weapon has been used in causing those injuries and therefore it cannot be said that there is indiscriminate firing upon the deceased. In additional to this one Ravindra too has sustained injuries over his person, though they are simple in nature but he is present over the place of incident is established. The case of co-accused persons Ajay Nishad and Shashi Kapoor quite distinguishable. Co-accused Shashi Kapoor was attributed the role of exhortation, whereby the present appellant has caused actually caused the fatal injury to the deceased and therefore principle of parity could not be applied in the present case.

¶19

In totality of the circumstances, the deceased has sustained six firearm injures over his person and this is broad day light incident, there cannot be any mistake regarding identity of the assailants. So far as ante timed FIR is concerned this aspect could be well appreciated at the stage of trial.

¶20

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur, accordingly the criminal appeal is hereby rejected .

¶21

However, the applicant/appellant is languishing in jail since 25.11.2019 and the trial is progressing in

¶22

snail speed, therefore it is directed that if the applicant would serve the copy of this order to the concerned court within a period of one month, the trial court would make all necessary endeavor and effort for early conclusion of the trial within a period of two years from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.8.2021 Abhishek Sri.

Dharmveer Sahni v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmveer Sahni v. State of Up and Another

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

Pradeep Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Up and Another

Onkar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P.

Shahil and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin @ Chinu Vs State of Up and Another

Adnan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others