Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra vs State Of U.P. on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 13.01.2023
Delivered On:- 19.01.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43556 of 2022
Applicant :- Dharmendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldip Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Shri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Kuldip Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
2. There is allegation against the applicant and five named accused that at about 10:00 p.m on 22.10.2016, they took away the brother of the informant, Alok Kumar, along with them, saying that they are taking him to the field and coming back soon. When he did not came back and searched was made. It has further alleged that the aforesaid accused persons had dispute with the aforesaid brother of the informant and they had threatened him. On 24.10.2016, the dead body of the deceased was found at 6:00 p.m in the river.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that initially the investigating officer filed charge-sheet against the applicant and one co-accused, Sanju, on 06.03.2017 under Section- 306 IPC and the applicant was enlarged on bail on 01.05.2017. Charges were framed and the trial was proceedings but during the trial the trial Court has amended the charges by further adding Sections 147, 346, 302 IPC on the application of informant. The altered charge-sheet has been challenged before this Court by means of Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Statements of P.W-1 and P.W-2 have been recorded and on the basis of the same the applicant and other accused persons have been implicated. Applicant never misused the liberty of bail granted to him earlier and will cooperate with the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the applicant and other accused persons were involved in the murder of the deceased since he was taken by them on the fateful night and thereafter he never returned. It has been submitted that it was a clear case of murder, which was wrongly made the case of abetment of suicide.
5. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the applicant was earlier enlarged on bail for committing the offence under Section 306 IPC. He has been additionally charged under Sections 147, 302 and 346 IPC. One of the co-accused, Ram Avtar @ Subash Chandra, has been granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21085 of 2021 on 03.06.2021. There is no allegation that applicant misused the liberty of bail earlier. Subsequently, co-accused, Sanju, has also been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25925 of 2022. Certified copy of the order sheet of the Court below placed before this Court shows that the trial is proceeding.
6. 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, 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, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant, Dharmendra, involved in Case Crime No. 749 of 2016, under Sections- 147, 364, 302, 306 IPC, Police Station- Sirsaganj, District- Firozabad, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(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 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.
(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, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 19.01.2023
Rohit
