Allowed

Dharmendra @ Dharm v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023ABAIL/11429/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court applied the Supreme Court guidelines from Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and granted bail with stipulated conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, no inducement, no leaving country without permission, surrender of passport, and adher

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200661

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11429 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dharmendra @ Dharm Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 648 of 2023, under sections 366, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bulandshahr during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 376, 366, 506 IPC against the applicant and two others on 27.7.2023. It is further submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under sections 366, 506 IPC against the applicant. It is further submitted that there is delay of about seven months in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that brother of applicant, namely Pradeep, (co accused) is named in the FIR, who is also said to be brother-in-law of victim. It is further submitted that perusal of statements of victim under section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. itself disclose that t here is no allegation against the applicant and the sole allegation is levelled against brother of applicant,namely, Pradeep Kumar. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Dharmendra @ Dharm involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶13

(2) The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶14

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶18

(7) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶19

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra @ Dharm v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra @ Dharm 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

Lalu Kumar @ Chandrakeshwar Vs State of U.P.

Sulaiman Vs State of U.P.

Purananand Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Mithlesh Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyaveer Vs State of U.P. and Another