Dharmendra Vs State of U.P

Court No. - 81

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29139 of 2021

Applicant :- Dharmendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Arun Kumar Pandey,Suman Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused/ applicant in Case Crime No.101 of 2021, under Sections 420, 364, 392, 120-B, 302, 201, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

Heard Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the accused/ applicant, Shri Mahendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State respondent.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/applicant that the accused/applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submitted that the co accused Prabhat @ Rohit who has been assigned the similar role, has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.57152 of 2022. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the main accused. The applicant is in jail since 23.2.2021. The case of the applicant is on better footing, as such, the accused/ applicant should also be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application of the accused/ applicant but did not dispute the parity.

¶10

Considered the rival submissions made by the parties' counsel and perused the record.

¶11

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case specially the fact that the co accused Prabhat @ Rohit who has been assigned the similar role, has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.57152 of 2022 and the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the main accused, I am of the view that the accused/ applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant - Dharmendra involved in Case Crime No.101 of 2021 (supra) be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person,

¶18

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 sufÏcient 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.

¶19

(v)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶24

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J)

¶25

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 Shukla

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA 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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aanchal Vs State of U.P.

Rajkamal Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Ravendra @ Ravindra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra @ Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Basant @ Gopal Vs State of U.P.