Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Dharmendra Kumar vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 October, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 3
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39826 of 2018 Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Chandra Srivastava,Shivajee Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Dharmendra Kumar seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in connection with Case Crime No. 412 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad.
As per prosecution case, in the night intervening 16-17.08.2017, Jitendra Kumar and Santoshi Patel, husband and wife, were found dead in their house. On 17.08.2017, FIR was lodged against unknown persons. On 06.11.2017 one Shakuntala came forward stating in her statement that on previous two occasions, she had physical relation with the co-accused Dinesh in the house of deceased Jitendra in absence of his wife Santoshi Patel. She has further alleged that on 17.08.2017, the co- accused Dinesh made confessional statement before her that he killed the two deceased.
Further case of the prosecution is that on 09.11.2018, the co- accused Dinesh was arrested and in his discovery statement, he has stated that he had killed the two deceased with the help of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement of the co-accused is inadmissible against him; there is inordinate delay in the statement of Shakuntala Devi and under no circumstances, the same can be relied upon.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular the nature of evidence available on record, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Dharmendra Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under section 229-a I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under section 174-a I.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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/her in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 S.K.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Dharmendra Kumar vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 October, 2018
Judges
  • Pritinker Diwaker
Advocates
  • Sharad Chandra Srivastava Shivajee Srivastava