Allowed

Dharmendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2025BAIL/35419/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving allegations of sharp weapon injury, noting the discrepancy between FIR allegations and medical reports, and considered jail overcrowding under Article 21. Bail was granted with standard conditions to prevent tampering and ensure court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and non-tampering with evidence.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35419 of 2025

Dharmendra

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Amar Bahadur Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶8

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Dharmendra seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.309 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 115(3), 352, 333 B.N.S., Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is languishing in jail since 11.7.2025. It is submitted that the applicant has been assigned the role of causing sharp weapon injury in the FIR but as per the medical report only complain of pain, contusion and abrasion have been found and no any kind of grievous injury has been sustained by the injured in this case. It is argued that the victim has stated in his statement during the course of investigation before the I.O. that the applicant has caused injury with a knife but the fact of causing sharp weapon injury is not corroborated by medical evidence available on record. It is further argued that accused applicant has no criminal antecedents. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶12

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶13

BAIL No. 35419 of 2025

¶14

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 IPC/269 BNS.

¶19

(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./84 of BNSS 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 IPC/209 of BNS.

¶20

(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./351 of B.N.S.S. 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.

¶21

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for

¶22

BAIL No. 35419 of 2025

¶23

¶24

cancellation of bail.

¶25

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

¶26

October 14, 2025 RA

¶27

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases