Heeru @ Dharmendra Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Heeru @ Dharmendra Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (i)-(v) (no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; undertaking against adjournments when witnesses present; presence on fixed dates with Section 229-A IPC exposure on unjustified absence; Section 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation contingency with Section 174-A IPC proceedings on failure to appear; presence at case opening, charge framing and Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement); complainant free to seek cancellation on breach; identity and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified by the court concerned before bonds are accepted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Heeru @ Dharmendra Kumar Dwivedi, charged in Case Crime No. 0192 of 2020 (Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 412, 504, 506, 353, 332, 333, 396, 120-B, 34 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, should be released on bail during pendency of trial.

Court's answer

It is a fit case for bail principally on the ground of parity: the identically placed co-accused (Vinay Kumar Tewari and Shiv Tiwari alias Ashutosh Tripathi) has already been released on bail by this Court, and the Court adopts the reasons disclosed in the co-accused order while expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed and the applicant is ordered released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to five conditions: (i) not to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses; (ii) undertaking not to seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present, default being treatable as abuse of liberty of bail; (iii) presence before the Trial Court on each fixed date, absence without sufficient cause exposing him to proceedings under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) misuse of bail triggering proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and, on failure to appear, initiation of proceedings under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and (v) mandatory presence at case opening, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., deliberate absence being treatable as abuse of liberty of bail. On breach, the complainant may move for cancellation of bail before this Court, and identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties is to be verified before bonds are accepted.

Key takeaways

In reaching the view that bail was warranted, the Court also weighed: uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one-sided police investigation ignoring the case of the accused side; the under-trial applicant's fundamental right to speedy trial and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the dictum of the Apex Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. ((2018) 3 SCC 22); the Apex Court judgment dated 11.07.2022 in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I. (S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021); and 5-6 times overcrowding of jails over and above their capacity by under-trials.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application ALLOWED — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 47), Justice Siddharth, CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 21815 of 2025, decided 19.8.2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC:141681). Applicant Heeru @ Dharmendra Kumar Dwivedi, languishing in jail since 18.8.2020, sought bail in Case Crime No. 0192 of 2020, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 412, 504, 506, 353, 332, 333, 396, 120-B, 34 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, during pendency of trial. Grant rested principally on parity: identically placed co-accused Vinay Kumar Tewari (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40769 of 2024) and Shiv Tiwari alias Ashutosh Tripathi (No. 2318 of 2025) had already been enlarged on bail by this Court; the Court expressly gave no opinion on the merits and adopted the reasons disclosed in the co-accused order. Further stated considerations: uncertainty of trial conclusion, one-sided police investigation, the under-trial's fundamental right to speedy trial under the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, dictum of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. ((2018) 3 SCC 22), Apex Court judgment dated 11.07.2022 in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I. (S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021), and 5-6 times overcrowding of jails by under-trials. Learned AGA opposed; counsel: Vidya Kant Rai (applicant), G.A. (State). Release ordered on personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to five conditions implicating Sections 229-A and 174-A IPC and Sections 82 and 313 Cr.P.C.; breach permits the complainant to apply for cancellation before this Court; identity and residence proofs to be verified before bonds accepted.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141681

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21815 of 2025

Applicant :- Heeru @ Dharmendra Kumar Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Kant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Heeru @ Dharmendra Kumar Dwivedi , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0192 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 412, 504, 506, 353, 332, 333, 396, 120-B, 34 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District- Kanpur Nagar , during pendency of trial.

The co-accused, Vinay Kumar Tewari and Shiv Tiwari alias Ashutosh Tripathi, has been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 40769 of 2024 and 2318 of 2025 respectively. The prayer for release of the applicant on bail on the ground of parity has been made. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.8.2020.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

Considering the fact that the identically placed co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and for the reasons disclosed in the order of co-accused, the Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the fact that the identically placed co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 that :-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

(v) 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.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 SS

Digitally signed by :- SURENDER SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad