Allowed

Dhirendra Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2022BAIL/52347/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court examined a bail application in a grievous hurt case under Section 307 IPC. The applicant claimed innocence and witness contradictions, while the prosecution cited witness naming and weapon recovery. The court, citing Article 21 and Dataram Singh, granted bail on personal bond and sureties without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of attending trial, not tampering with witnesses, and not indulging in illegal activities.

Dhirendra Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52347 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dhirendra Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh,Ambuj Pandey,Markanday Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The accused- applicant Dhirendra Kushwaha is involved in Case Crime No. 809 of 2021, under Sections 307 I.P.C., Police Station Naini, District- Prayagraj (Allahabad).

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. is unnamed. The allegation against the present accused is of causing injury by throwing a bomb on Sonu (injured). The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the only eye witness Ajay Kumar, who has stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he recognized the accused on the date of incident. He saw the accused Dhirendra throwing a bomb which caused injury to Sonu Soni. It is further stated that Dhirendra Kushwaha had placed an order for preparing doors and windows to him so he recognizes him very well. The said witness Ajay Kumar filed affidavits before the District Judge and S.S.P. concerned stating that neither he recognizes Dhirendra nor he was ever placed with any order to prepare doors and windows for him nor he witnessed the incident of throwing a bomb on Sonu by Dhirendra and thereby getting him injured. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and argued that there are two eye witnesses of the incident i.e. Mohd. Irfan and Ajay Kumar. The eye witness Ajay Kumar in his statement has specifically named the present accused committing the crime. After arrest of the present accused bomb has been recovered from him, hence, the case for bail cannot be said to be made out.

¶9

If we go through the first information report, it is admittedly unnamed. The injured and first informant in their statements have shown their unawareness as to who committed the crime.

¶10

As per case diary, the sole witness is Ajay Kumar, who is having furniture shop near the spot. Though, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has stated that he had seen the incident committed by the present accused but his affidavits are on record which are alleged to have been sent to the S.S.P. and District Judge concerned that he neither recognizes the accused nor witnessed him committing the crime nor he has given such statement to the Investigating Officer.

¶11

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant, Dhirendra Kushwaha , who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶13

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

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.

¶18

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.3.2022 Radhika

¶20

Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.03.14 17:41:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhirendra Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Kushwaha 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

Amar Nath Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunita Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Bhavar Pal Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Bhola Vs State of U.P.