Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra vs State Of U.P. on 29 May, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22608 of 2019
Applicant :- Dharmendra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gufran Ahmad Khan,Nazrul Islam Jafri(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gufran Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that one Sohanpal has informed to the police that Sonpal is lying in dead condition in a maize field of one Satish. On that information inquest of the deceased was conducted. Informant Jaiveer was also present at the time of inquest and other family members of the deceased were also present. At the time of inquest the informant Jaiveer has not expressed any suspicion against the applicant and has not disclosed this fact of incident. Thereafter on next day i.e. 26.7.2018 informant Jaiveer has lodged the first information report against four persons including the applicant with the averments that the applicant and other co-accused were forcing the deceased to drink liquor and were assaulting him. The co-accused Jagpal was pressing neck of the deceased and co-accused Chandrapal was committing marpit with kicks and fists. The co-accused Badan Singh was pouring liquor into the mouth of the deceased and applicant caught hold the mouth of the deceased and was pouring poisonous substance into his mouth. In post mortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been shown ante mortem injury. Viscera was also preserved. One contusion was found on the back side of neck of the deceased. In viscera report ethyl organo phosphorus insecticide poison has been found to the deceased. It has further been submitted that if the informant had seen the alleged incident, he would have disclosed this fact on the same day i.e. 25.7.2018 at the time of inquest of the deceased. The F.I.R. was lodged after consultation with delay of 24 hours. In fact, none had seen the alleged incident. False story has been concocted by the prosecution. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. There is no cogent evidence on record to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. The co-accused Jagpal and Badan Singh have already been released on bail by this court vide orders dated 23.5.2019 and 20.5.2019 respectively, therefore, applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 13.2.2019.
Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Dharmendra involved in Case Crime No. 166 of 2018, under section 302, 328, 506 IPC, P.S. Dhanari, District Sambhal be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019
Masarrat
