Allowed

Dharmendra Sigh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022/7706/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant charged with murder (Section 302 IPC) pending trial. Considering the prima facie weakness of evidence and the bail grant to a co-accused, the court allowed the application subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with one personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to standard conditions regarding witness tampering and trial attendance.

Dharmendra Sigh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7706 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmendra Sigh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ravish Chandra Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Dharmendra Singh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 389 of 2020 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Hardoi vide order dated 9.6.2021.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 10.8.2020 has been lodged by the wife of the deceased against four named persons namely, Balram, Satendra, Uttam and Kallu stating that on 9.8.2020 at about 6.00 p.m. her husband went to the town and he did not return back till late night. After that she informed her friends and relatives and started to search her husband, then she got knowledge that named co-accused Kallu, who is neighbour of the first informant, intoxicated the wine to her husband and went away with her husband. On 10.8.2020 at about 8.00 a.m. she has been informed further that the dead body of her husband is lying down in the factory field.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report, inquest of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 10.8.2020 at 9.41 hours. Postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was also conducted on 10.8.2020 at 5.00 p.m. As per postmortem report, ten injuries were found on the person of the deceased like as multiple stab wound, incised wound. Cause of death is Shock and Hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses including the informant, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant, co-accused Anuj Singh @ Pammu and Vishvendra Pratap Singh on 11.11.2020. The applicant has been arrested on

¶9

18.8.2020.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant was implicated in the present case on the basis of his confessional statement. It is further submitted that four named persons namely, Balram, Satendra, Uttam and Kallu have been exonerated only on the basis of statement of one Anju Singh, who is wife of co-accused Satendra Singh. It is further submitted that after nine days of the incident, the applicant and other co-accused persons were arrested on their confessional statements and they were implicated in the present case.

¶11

It is further submitted that except the confessional statements, there is no other direct or circumstantial evidence against the applicant. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Alleged recovery of knife from the joint possession of the applicant and other two co-accused is made without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 100, Cr.P.C. There is no independent/public witness of the alleged recovery.

¶12

It is further submitted that Vishvendra Pratap Singh @ Gopal Singh is real son of the deceased and call detail report of coaccused Vishvendra Pratap Singh has been obtained during the course of investigation. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.8.2020. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

It is further submitted that co-accused Anuj Singh @ Pammu, having similar role, has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9555 of 2021.

¶14

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie

¶17

appears that;

¶18

(a) Present first information report has been lodged against four named persons by the wife of the deceased, who have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer;

¶19

(b) Applicant is not named in the first information report;

¶20

¶21

(d) Alleged recovery of knife is made from the joint possession of the applicant and other two co-accused persons from open place;

¶22

(e) Other co-accused Anuj Singh @ Pammu, having similar role, has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9555 of 2021.

¶23

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶24

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let applicant, Dharmendra Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with

¶27

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.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶31

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶32

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶33

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶34

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶35

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶36

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶37

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the

¶38

official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶39

Order Date :- 23.9.2022 T. Sinha

¶40

Digitally signed by TRIPTI SINHA Date: 2022.09.23 17:19:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Sigh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Sigh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waseer Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aleem @ Chhotu @ Aleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and Ors.

Shiv Charan Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Kaushlendra Alias Atul Vs State of U.P Secy. Home

Pradeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secretariat, Lko.

Hasruddin Ansari @ Bauna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.