Allowed

Dharmendra Alias Dharmesh Alias Chhotu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2022BAIL/46229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a robbery case under Sections 392, 411, and 120-B of IPC. Noting that a co-accused had already been released on bail by this court, the Court found it a fit case for bail and imposed strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail after furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

Dharmendra Alias Dharmesh Alias Chhotu Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46229 of 2022 Applicant :- Dharmendra Alias Dharmesh Alias Chhotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶4

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.77 of 2022, under Sections 392, 411, 120-B of IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Chandapa, DistrictHathras.

¶5

As per the prosecution story, it has been alleged that on 31.05.2022 when the informant was going to his house four unknown persons riding on two motorcyles interrupted the informant on the way and snatched the bag of the informant in which some jewelleries and cash was kept.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has further stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that false recovery from the possession of the applicant has been shown by the police. It is also submitted that the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. It is further stated that there is four cases of criminal history against the applicant which has been explained by means of supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that the co-accused Sonu Alias Naresh Kumar Nigam has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.11.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46757 of 2022. Copy of the bail order has been placed before the Court by learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant having better case for getting bail on account of parity. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 13.08.2022, and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶9

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

¶10

(i) 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶14

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.11.2022/ Shiv

¶16

Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.11.04 09:54:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Alias Dharmesh Alias Chhotu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Alias Dharmesh Alias Chhotu 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

Shivveer Singh Sengar Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Nagendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Kamal Saini Vs State of U.P.

Faheem Vs State of U.P.

Chanchal Kumar Vs State of U.P.