Dharmendra Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39270

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4581 of 2024

Applicant :- Dharmendra Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishwas Saraswat, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit and the learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, same are taken on record.

¶8

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 24.11.2023 in Case Crime no. 571 of 2023 u/s 302, 504, 120B IPC, P.S. P.S. Kotwali Kadipur, District Sultanpur. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. As per prosecution story the role attributed to the present applicant is of exhortation to his son who is co-accused namely, Divyanshu Dubey is a major person and he has fired upon the victim, resultant thereof the victim / father of the informant died on the spot. He has further submitted that the present applicant has explained his criminal history in para 21 to 23 of the bail application. All the aforesaid cases are minor in nature where the present applicant is on bail.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail. Sri Mishra has vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant is a person of criminal antecedents and on his exhortation his son has fired upon the victim / father of the informant, resultant thereof the father of the informant died on spot. He has further submitted that if the present applicant is released on bail he shall definitely influence the evidence and shall cause the offence while on bail, therefore, he has requested that this bail be rejected.

¶11

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that the role attributed to the present applicant is of exhortation to his son who is the main co-accused namely and is a major person, the present applicant has explained his criminal history in para 21 to 23 of the bail application, all the cases shown against the applicant are minor in nature where the present applicant is on bail, and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Let the applicant Dharmendra Dubey , involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) After release from jail the present applicant shall not enter into the village until the evidence of fact witnesses are recorded.

¶14

(ii) He shall not influence any of the witnesses and if the informant finds any evidence / material to show that the present applicant is influencing or trying to influence any of the fact witnesses, any appropriate application may be filed before the police concerned who shall take appropriate action of such application

¶15

after verifying the allegation of the informant.

¶16

(iii) 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(v) 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.

¶19

(vi) 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient 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.

¶20

(vii) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶21

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 23.5.2024 Om

¶23

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shakeel Quraishi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Munejar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home at Lko.U.P.

Vipin Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.