Allowed

Dharmendra Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2022BAIL/5597/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court bail application was allowed to Dharmendra Kushwaha in a murder case involving brown Oxford shoe, incriminating the applicant in the crime on suspicion basis. The court found no credible evidence against the applicant and held that the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence were conspicuously missing.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5597 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmendra Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Dharmendra Kushwaha , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 291 of 2021, under Sections 366, 302, 394 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Jhansi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first information report of the present case was lodged under Section 366, 302 I.P.C. on 26.08.2021 by Hari Mohan, the father of the deceased alleging therein that on 23/24.08.2021 his daughter went off somewhere and was not found on her bed. She was searched but could not be traced. Later on her dead body was recovered on the hill on 25.08.2021. The applicant and co-accused Preetam lured his daughter, have murdered and have thrown her dead body.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to the murder. The naming of the applicant in the first information report is on the basis of suspicion only. It is argued that the applicant was arrested on 30.08.2021 along with co-accused Vallan Kushwaha and Narendra Pal and from the possession of the applicant, one mobile phone & Rs. 200/- were recovered which belonged to the applicant and are not incriminating in any manner. it is further argued that as per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the police has got recovered a bat of baseball of grey colour from the bushes near the hill. It is argued that there is no corroboration of the use of the said weapon in the present case. It is argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. The implication of the applicant is with malafide intentions. The applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 24 and is in jail since 30.08.2021.

¶9

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the naming of the applicant in the first information report is on the basis of suspicion. There is no eye-witness to the murder. There is no credible evidence against the applicant. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The links in the chain are conspicuously missing.

¶11

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Dharmendra Kushwaha , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶19

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

¶20

The bail application is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.2.2022 AS Rathore

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.17 17:24:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meena Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Bobby Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Indu Devi Vs State of Up through Principal Secretary Home,and another