Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 17 March, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15687
Court No. - 18
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10705 of 2024
Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anshuman Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Shri Wasim Ahmad on behalf of complainant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
This is the fourth bail application. The first bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.2697 of 2016 was dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 12.05.2016.
The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.211 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307, 302 I.P.C. and Section 7 of CLA Act, P.S. Maholi, District Sitapur.
It is alleged that according to prosecution case, the brother of the applicant wanted to contest the forthcoming election of Village Pradhan and due to that current Pradhan Harbansh Singh was inimical to the informant and his brother. On 25.6.2015, the nephew of the informant went to fair price shop then Satyendra Singh one of the family members of village Pradhan had abused Satyam and some scuffle took place and when information about the incident was given to Police outpost Bada Gaon, the informant along with brother Jitendra and other family members went to police out post at about 4 p.m. Then the village Pradhan Harbansh Singh along with 12 other named accused persons out of which nine were having fire arms and four were having lathi, bhala (sharp cutting weapon) surrounded the informant and his family members and Harbansh Sinhh exhorted and said that no one should remain alive and by saying this Harbansh Singh shot Jitendra and in this scuffle informant's father Ram Lotan, and five others were injured as a result of firing Jitendra, Sunder Lal and Lal ji died.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Anoop Singh who was granted bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24.02.2025 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1825/2025 a weapon was recovered from him whereas there is no recovery of weapon from the present applicant and thus, it is submitted that case of present applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused Anoop Singh. While granting bail to the co-accused Anoop Singh, the Supreme Court has referred to the bail granted by it to another co-accused Ram Gopal Singh, having identical allegation. The order dated 24.2.2015 (supra) of Supreme Court is extracted hereunder :
"The petition is filed seeking leave to challenge the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6455/2021, dismissing the second application for bail filed by the petitioner, in connection with F.I.R. No. 211 of 2015, dated 25.06.2015, registered at Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307, 302 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exactly similarly situated co-accused namely, Ram Gopal Singh, against whom there is identical allegation, has been granted bail by this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.5315/2024.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of triple murder.
4. However, on the query of the Court as to why the trial has not concluded, if the prosecution was so serious, there is no satisfactory answer.
5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for more than nine and a half years and similarly situated co-accused having been granted bail, we are of the considered view that the petitioner, Anoop Singh, be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.
6. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
He submits that the applicant is in jail since 10.07.2015.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer.
Perused the record.
On due consideration to the period of custody gone into by the applicant and the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 10.07.2015 and the judgment of supreme Court in the case ofJaved Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 so also the bail order of Anoop Singh (supra), without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicantDharmendra Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 17.3.2025
Saurabh Yadav/-
