Dharmendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30909

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12074 of 2024

Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Puttu Lal Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramakar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Puttu Lal Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Abhinav Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ramakar Shukla, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.172 of 2024 under Sections 364, 302, 201 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Pratapgarh.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 29.05.2024 against six persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant's son aged 27 years used to work in the mobile shop of co-accused Durgesh Shukla and he used to go to the shop and come back with the shop owner. He had gone to the shop with Durgesh Shukla in the morning of 27.05.2024 but he did not come back. When the informant went to the house of Durgesh Shukla, he found blood stains on his clothes. Durgesh Shukla told that he had been robbed and other named accused were accompanying at the time of the incident but Durgesh Shukla did not say anything about the informant's son. The informant expressed a suspicion that the accused persons had killed his son.

¶9

The police claim to have arrested four of the named accused persons, including the applicant, on the basis of information received from an informer while they were sitting in a vehicle and in their custodial statement they confessed that they had killed the deceased by strangulating him with a gamchha and had buried the dead body on the river bank. The body was recovered on the pointing out of the accused persons.

¶10

The postmortem examination report mentions the cause of death to be strangulation.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal histor.

¶12

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge-sheet submitted on 23.08.2024

¶13

One lovekush Singh stated that he had seen the accused persons sitting in a grove with the deceased and all of them were consuming liquor. The mother of the deceased stated that she was coming with his other son Chhote Lal @ Vishawajeet on a motorcycle and he had seen a bolero vehicle which was driven by co-accused Anil Kumar, the other accused persons Pramod @ Pappu, Dharmendra (the applicant) and Durgesh Shukla were sitting in the vehicle alongwith the deceased. Durgesh Shukla came to her house about two hours thereafter and told that Badelal had snatched away his motorcycle and money.

¶14

Keeping in view the fact that the deceased had gone missing on 27.05.2024 and the FIR was lodged on 29.05.2024 on the basis of suspicion; that the FIR states that the informant had

¶15

gone to the house of Durgesh Shukla to enquire about his son and had seen blood stains on the clothes of Durgesh Shukla and the FIR alleges that the Durgesh Shukla told the informant that he had been robbed whereas the deceased's mother (the informant's wife) had stated that Durgesh Shukla had himself come to her house on the date of the incident and had told that his motorcycle and money had been robbed by the deceased; and that the applicant has no criminal history, he is languishing in jail since 29.05.2024 whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Dharmendra Kumar be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, unless his/her appearance exempted by the trial Court.

¶19

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 -Amit K-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Ravi Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Vikas Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Pushpa Pal @ Km Pushpa vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Chhote Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.