Allowed

Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2022BAIL/1911/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to Dharam Singh in a murder and kidnapping case. The court noted lack of incriminating articles, late witness statements, and frivolous nature of last-seen witnesses before granting bail with stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail via personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering, judicial attendance, and no further criminal activity.

Dharam Singh Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1911 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dharam Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shikhar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, 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 Dharam Singh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 483 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 147, 363, 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station-Anoopshahar, District-Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 20.12.2021.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 20.07.2021 under Section 363 has been lodged by the father of the deceased (Kunal Ratnam) aged about 6 years stating that on 19.07.2021 Monday at about 2.00 p.m. his minor son was playing in front of the house of the applicant at that time his daughter Divya was also playing there but after it started raining Divya came back to her home and the applicant his wife and son called the deceased in his house. After one hour when rain stopped the informant started searching his son (Kunal Ratnam) but he did not find him. The applicant has enmity with the first informant. The applicant and other two coaccused persons kidnapped his son.

¶8

After the first information report was lodged the dead body was found in a canal. Inquest of the body of the deceased has been conducted on the basis of the information received on 23.07.2021 at 9.11 a.m. The deceased aged about 7-8 years. The inquest report was prepared in the name of unknown person. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.07.2021 at about 5.00 p.m. at district Hospital Bulandshahar, the cause of death opined was Asphyxia due to strangulation and hyoid bone was found fractured. No external injury has been found except the lingature mark of 24x2 cm. After recording the statement of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet against the applicant and four co-

¶9

accused persons who are the family members of the applicant. The applicant was arrested on 25.07.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. After 47 days of the incident i.e. 04.09.2021 statement of three witnesses was recorded by the Investigating Officer where they stated that they had seen the applicant and his wife Kiran Devi, son Abhishek and other family members of the applicant were going somewhere on 19.07.2021. It is alleged that the son of the applicant namely Abhishek was seen carrying a Bora/sack on the back of his shoulder. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no incriminating article was recovered from the applicant and other family members during the course of investigation. It is also submitted that further investigation is not pending in the present matter. It is further submitted that D.N.A. sample of the deceased has been taken by the police during the investigation to identify the body of the son of the first informant. It is further submitted that the first informant firstly denied to identify the body to be that of his son but later he identified that the body as his son.

¶11

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. 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. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit, nor convicted by any court in any cognizable offence.

¶12

After considering the facts of the present case, it prima facie appears that ;

¶13

No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant.

¶14

On 04.09.2021 first time the statement of last seen witnesses was recorded who stated that the applicant along with other family members of the applicant took a bora/sack and were going somewhere.

¶15

Three witnesses of last seen who stated after 47 days of the incident they belonged to same village.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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 .

¶19

Let applicant, Dharam 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:

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

Order Date :- 7.2.2022 SY

¶33

Digitally signed by SWETA YADAV Date: 2022.02.10 10:34:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Singh 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

Raju @ Rishipal @ Rishi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar@ Shibbo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Vs State of U.P.

Gopi Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Guddi Vs State of U.P.

Smt Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P.