Allowed

Dharmendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2022BAIL/6108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for an applicant charged with offences under Sections 324, 504, 304 and 325 IPC. The court held that injuries sustained by co-accused and a cross version indicate that the applicant is not solely the aggressor, making it a fit case for bail. Bail was granted with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance, evidence tampering, and absconding.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6108 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijaya Shankar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.S.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manu Raj Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2021, under Sections 324,504,304 and 325 IPC, Police Station Fatehganj, District Bareilly during pendency of trial.

¶7

As per the FIR, the applicant and other coaccused persons caused lathi injuries to deceased-Baburam under intoxication and when informant and his wife tried to save him, they also caused injuries to them. Post mortem report of deceased-Baburam shows that he sustained one crushed injury and four lacerated wounds and as per Doctor he died due to ante mortem injuries. Statement of injured/informant shows that in the incident, her bone of right hand was fractured.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that from the side of the applicant also two persons sustained injuries including the applicant and this fact shows that the applicant's side was not aggressor and there is cross version too, therefore, on this ground alone the applicant should be released on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the post mortem report of the deceased shows that he sustained as many as

¶10

four lacerated wounds on his occipital region including skull and ear, therefore, he was brutally assaulted by the applicant along with other coaccused persons, but the learned AGA admitted the fact that at that time, the applicant and another co-accused were under intoxication and from the applicant's side, the applicant and another one person sustained injuries.

¶11

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

As per the prosecution itself, the applicant and other co-accused persons assaulted the deceased in the state of intoxication and further the injuries sustained by the informant is on her right hand and there is a cross version and in the instant case applicant and another person also sustained injuries. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case in which the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Dharmendra 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this

¶23

bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 28.3.2022 SKM

¶25

Digitally signed by SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.04.04 18:25:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra 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

Subhawati Devi Vs State of U.P

Saarif @ Sharif Vs State of U.P.

Lalu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Mor Singh Vs State of U.P.