Allowed

Dilip @ Bhola v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022BAIL/50245/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application regarding an offence under Sections 304, 323, 504, and 506 IPC, the court granted bail considering inconsistencies in the prosecution case regarding injuries, the co-accused's bail, and the applicant's lack of criminal history, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance, prohibition of adjournment during evidence, and specific prohibit

Dilip @ Bhola Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50245 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dilip @ Bhola Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Kamlesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2022, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Mahuadih, District- Deoria.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that even according to the prosecution own case, it is alleged that on account of minor dispute in the house, the applicant, who is the brother of daughter in-law of the deceased came at his house and dashed the head of the deceased against the wall and thereafter left the house alongwith her sister.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report, wherein the doctor has noted that no abnormality was detected in the head and that no injury has been caused. The doctor has further noted that cause of death could not be ascertained and as such viscera was preserved but the fact remains that the victim has not suffered any injury on his head, Therefore, the prosecution story becomes doubtful.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Rajkumar has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31883 of 2022 vide order dated 12.10.2022 and the case of the applicant stands on the same footing as that of co-accused, who has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 16.4.2022 and has no criminal history

¶12

to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he be released on bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that as per the post-mortem report, the victim has not suffered any injury on his head, though it is specific case of the prosecution that his head was dashed against the wall, due to which he suffered injuries and later died and further the fact that the applicant is in jail since 16.4.2022 and the charge sheet has already been submitted and the co-accused has already been granted bail.

¶14

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that it is specific case of the prosecution that the applicant alongwith his brother had reached the house of his sister, who is the daughter in-law of the deceased and on account of trivial dispute had dashed the head of the deceased against the wall causing serious injuries on his head. consequent to which, he was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. Further from the careful perusal of the post-mortem report, it is evident that the doctor has noted that no abnormality was detected in the scalp of the deceased and further it has been noted that there is no external injury on the person of the deceased and as such viscera has been preserved as the cause of death could not be ascertained. Having regard to the dates mentioned in said post-mortem report, prima facie the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the first information report becomes doubtful.

¶15

It is further germane to point out that similarly placed coaccused Rajkumar has already been granted bail and the case of the applicant stands on the same footing as that of co-accused who has already been granted bail by this Court. The charge sheet in the present case has already been submitted, as such there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that prima facie applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Dilip @ Bhola be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

(1). 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.

¶18

(2). 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 IPC.

¶19

(3). In case, the applicant misuses 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 fails 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 IPC.

¶20

(4). 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.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶22

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶24

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.11.2022 KU

¶26

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.11.10 17:07:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilip @ Bhola v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip @ Bhola 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

Shyam Sundar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hafeez Vs State of U.P.