Allowed

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 May 2018BAIL/19918/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed bail to the applicant, father-in-law of the deceased, in a case under ss. 498A, 304B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found no convincing material tampering with evidence and noted the applicant was ready to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Bail released on Personal Bond and two Sureties on conditions to appear regularly and not tamper with evidence.

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19918 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Narayan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and he lived separately from the deceased. Further submission is that the post mortem report would indicate that apart from ligature mark, there was no other mark of injury found on the body of the deceased which shows that she was not subjected to any other kind of violence soon before her death. Submission is that for the reason of his relationship, his case is distinguishable from that of her husband, who may be said to be the first person responsible to ensure the safety and security of his wife and who is having major onus to explain unnatural death under abnormal circumstances. It has been pointed out that the mother-in-law of the deceased has already been released on bail by another Bench of this Court on 24.5.2018. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 11.4.2018 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Rajendra Prasad, involved in Case Crime No. 67 of 2018, u/ss. 498A, 304B, 323 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Rajapur, DistrictChitrakoot, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶11

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶13

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶14

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶15

Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Naresh

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Dilshad Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Alias Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Munib and 4 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Nanhey Lal Vs State of U.P.

Fizzoo @ Firoz Vs State of U.P.