Allowed

Dharam Raj Paswan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2023/645/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal bail application where the applicant, detained under sections 304, 504, and 506 IPC, sought release. The court considered the delayed FIR, unclear cause of death, prior police final report, and the applicant's undertaking as grounds for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount.

Dharam Raj Paswan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 645 of 2023 Applicant :- Dharam Raj Paswan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath Mishra,Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶4

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Dharam Raj Paswan) is languishing in jail since 20.11.2022 in Complaint Case No.8167 of 2020, under Sections 304, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Dhanepur, District-Gonda.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

¶6

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the date of incident is indicated as 19.05.2018, however, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 19.08.2018 i.e. after three months by filing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 25.06.2018.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that even the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been filed after more than one month and there is no explanation of delay in lodging the aforesaid F.I.R.

¶8

As per the allegation of the F.I.R., all the accused persons have illegally kept the victim in their custody for getting one piece of land registered in their favour, thereafter, they beaten the victim, resultant thereof, he died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.6 of the application, which is statement of Doctor who has conducted the post-mortem of the victim (since deceased) whereby the Doctor has opined that cause of death is not clear, however, minor injuries sustained by the victim may not be the cause of death. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.5 of the application, which is statement of some independent witnesses. The perusal thereof reveals that the victim (since deceased) was a drunkard and used to take hemp (ganja) and other intoxicated contents. On the date of incident, the victim (since deceased) was driving the Motorcycle in such intoxicated condition and he fell down from

¶10

the Motorcycle, resultant thereof, he sustained injuries. As per the statement of the independent witness Sri Jagdamba Prasad S/o Sri Yadunath, the victim had sold out his property to Chinta Ram, Raju @ Vinay Kumar Verma so the brother of the victim, namely, Dhani Ram (informant) was annoyed from his brother/ victim.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that on account of the aforesaid reason the informant/ complainant has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. after the delay of more than one month.

¶12

Further attention has been drawn towards the Annexure No.7 of the application, which is a police report filed under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. submitting a final report in the case in question indicating therein that no incriminating material / evidence has been found against any of the accused persons, therefore, no further proceedings would be required to be taken in the present case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that on the aforesaid final report the informant/ compliant has filed the protest application. Such protest application has been treated as a complaint. Thereafter the statement of the complainant as well as the accused persons has been recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and the accused persons including the present applicant have been summoned.

¶14

As per learned counsel for the applicant, in view of the facts and circumstances and the fact that the present applicant has not avoided the process of law, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail, the applicant undertakes that he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, the contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that the independent witness has stated that the victim (since deceased) was a drunkard and was in habit to take every type of intoxicated contents/ material/ things, the victim had sold out his property to the co-accused persons so the brother of the victim who is informant was annoyed, there is delay of more than one month in filing application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and no reason of delay has been explained, earlier the

¶17

final report was filed by the police, on the protest being filed by the side of the complainant, the complaint case has been registered and the undertaking of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly, this Court is of the view that it a fit case for bail.

¶18

Let the present applicant (Dharam Raj Paswan) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(iii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(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.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid terms, the application is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharam Raj Paswan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Raj Paswan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Shivakant Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ghanshyam Saroj Vs the State Thru. C.B.I.

Rita Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko.

Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.