High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Dharmendra Kumar Dubey @ Dharmu Dubey And Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1027 of 2005  RD-AH 9295 (10 May 2006)
Court No. 21
Criminal Appeal No. 1027 of 2005
Dharmendra Kumar Duvey @ Dharmu Dubey @ another. Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble. Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.
We have heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. in opposition, on prayer for bail of appellant Dharmendra Kumar Dubey @ Dharmu Dubey and perused the impugned judgment.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence against the appellant. It is further pointed out that from the very inception he had disputed the fact that he was husband of the deceased and father of two children. He also contended that no identification of the present appellant was done from the members of the Dharmshala where the incident had taken place. He further pointed out that the investigation officer has categorically stated that he did not get identification parade conducted. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there was absolutely no evidence against the present appellant and the whole judgment is based on conjecture and surmises. He further contended that in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. no question was put to him as to whether the deceased was his wife and child witness was his own child. He also pointed out various order sheets dated 17.2.2003, 10.3.2003, 2.4.2003 and 28.4.2003. A perusal of these order sheets from the record of trial court indicates that on these dates the trial court has observed that child witness, namely Raj Kumari @ Dhanraj Kumari did not identify the present appellant no. 1 as his father. The counsel also contended that no question was put to the witness regarding relationship under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. pointed out at page 17 of the judgment where the aforesaid witness has said that the murder has been committed by his father. However, he could not point out any evidence to link the present appellant to be the father of the said witness. Learned counsel for the appellants has further pointed out that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the bail and moreover the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. At present, appeals of 1982-83 are being listed for hearing.
Without adverting over the matter of the case further, we are inclined to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of appeal.
Let the appellant-Dharmendra Kumar Dubey @ Dharmu Dubey be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Varanasi in Trial Number 31-A of 2001, State Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Dubey @ Dharmu Dubey and another
provided the appellant deposits the entire amount of fine in the court below within a period of one month from today.
The C.J.M., Varanasi is directed to accept both the solvent sureties after getting their address and status verified from the concerned police station. One of the two sureties shall be a young relatives of the present appellant. The said sureties will also inform the court about the whereabouts of the present appellant during the pendency of the appeal once in six months.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate will send photocopies of the bail bonds to this Court immediately after its acceptance.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.