Allowed

Dharmendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023ABAIL/11374/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the State of U.P. in an anticipatory bail application for Dharmendra and Lokesh accused in a domestic violence and wandering offence case. The court allowed bail after noting the applicants' settlement with the victim, a personal bond with sureties, and specific conditions regarding interrogation and attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding interrogation, tampering, leaving India, and court attendance.

Dharmendra and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11374 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, Brief-holder and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0209 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 376, 377 IPC, Police Station Chharra, District Aligarh.

¶7

As per allegations in the FIR, the first informant Sangita W/o Dharmendra was being tortured and harassed by her husband and other members of the family; she was sexually exploited by the accused persons.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this FIR out of domestic disputes and disagreement between them; no incident of Section 376 and 377 IPC ever took place and that the first informant/the victim has settled her matter with the applicants (who happen to be her husband and her dewar) and she has no objection in case anticipatory bail is granted to them.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned AGA for the State.

¶10

The applicant no. 1-Dharmendra and the first informant-Sangita are personally present before this Court, who were identified by Sri Kuldeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant in this Court. Both of them stated in open court that they have settled their matters and are living together peacefully since last 6 to 7 months. It is stated by the first informant that she has small child to look after and she needs support of her husband for the

¶11

same.

¶12

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by the Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶13

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶14

Let the applicants, Dharmendra and Lokesh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions as below:-

¶15

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv) that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶22

11. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.2.2023 #Vikram/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra and Another 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

Mohammad Ovaish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saeed Vs State of U.P.

Anees Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asif Malik and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brindalal Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Prasad Vs State of U.P.