Allowed

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024/14438/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a criminal case involving alleged assault. The court noted discrepancies in witness statements and lack of prior criminal record. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding trial attendance and evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence or abscond during trial.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46006

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14438 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Dharmendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Bhardwaj,Arvind Kumar Gautam

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 484 of 2022, under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 & 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Gola, District Kheri.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that there are material discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses as one Malti Devi, who stated that the victim was assaulted with 'banka' whereas the injured and other witnesses have stated that the weapon used is an axe. He next submits that in fact, from study of the case history, it transpires that there was no intent of the applicant to commit any offence but it is a case of sudden provocation. Adding his arguments, he submits that the charge sheet has been filed but the trial has not been committed yet and it is expected that the trial would not conclude soon. He further added that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, as is stated in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is languishing in jail since 18.7.2022. In case, the applicant is granted bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that main role is assigned to the present accused as he has assaulted the injured victim with axe and injury report also supports the version of the prosecution, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after

¶11

perusal of record, it is evident that the applicant is in jail since 18.7.2022; charge sheet has been filed and the trial has not commenced; there are material discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses and injured; applicant is in jail since 18.7.2022; the applicant has undertaken that in case he is granted he will not misused the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings; and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Dharmendra involved in the aforementioned crime 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

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to

¶19

cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 5.7.2024 Ram Murti

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Puja Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aryan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aman Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shiva Kant Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Raju Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.