Allowed

Dhanpal @ Bhura v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 May 2023BAIL/9360/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court considered the allegation of an assault with a country-made pistol and the delay in lodging the FIR. The court noted the absence of gunpowder residue and the applicant's lack of criminal history. Relying on the principle that bail is the rule, the court allowed bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

Dhanpal @ Bhura Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9360 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dhanpal @ Bhura Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Sisodia

¶4

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged by the informant on 6.10.2022 in respect of an incident 13.9.2022 with the allegation that the informant on 13.9.2022 at about 9.00 pm was going along with his brother towards his agricultural field. On the way, the informant met the accused persons. The applicant and the co-accused Ram Niwas are stated to have fired with the countrymade pistol and as a result of the same, Roop Ram sustained injuries. He submits that the injured was medically examined on 13.9.2022 and the injury report is annexed as Annexure no.2 to the affidavit in which no gun powder smell and no burn injury seen. and alcohol like smell is present.

¶8

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. The X-ray of the injured was made in which an opaque shadow in the temporal region of skull. The applicant has been falsely implicated. There is no explanation regarding the delay in lodging the first information report has been offered by the informant. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the prosecution that the injuries are of the nature which could result in homicide. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 20.12.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Sri Brijesh Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Sisodia, learned counsel for the informant submits that the opaque shadow has been seen in the X-ray which suggests that the firing has taken

¶10

place.

¶11

On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the informant as to the delay in lodging the first information report, no explanation has been offered.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶13

Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶14

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶15

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.

¶16

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶18

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant Dhanpal @ Bhura involved in Case Crime No.419 of 2022, under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Bhamaura, District Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶21

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶24

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶25

5 . 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶28

Order Date :- 2.5.2023 Bhaskar

¶29

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhanpal @ Bhura v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanpal @ Bhura 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

Gulab Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harshdeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Khurseed Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aamir Mahmood Vs State of U.P.

Hamid Vs State of U.P.

Vaibhav Mishra Vs State of U.P.