Allowed

Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Pal Alias Pintoo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2018BAIL/24216/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498-A IPC, 304-B IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act, the single judge granted bail to the applicant. The court imposed strict conditions preventing tampering with evidence and ensuring regular police reporting.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence and report to police monthly.

Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Pal Alias Pintoo Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24216 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Pal Alias Pintoo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Trivedi,Anil Kumar Shukla,Tribhuwan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

Supplementary and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record.

¶6

Applicant- Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Pal Alias Pintoo seeks bail in Sessions Trial No.175 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.159 of 2015, under Sections 498-A,304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Heard Shri Saumitra Trivedi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Tribhuwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and also perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The prosecution case in nut shell is that the First Information Report was lodged by Keshram against the applicant and his family members on 25.3.2015 in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 23.2.2014 contending therein that the marriage of his daughter Seema was performed with the applicant on 25.4.2008 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage, but the applicant and his family members were not satisfied. As such, soon after the marriage, the applicant and his family members started demanding one motorcycle and Rs.50,000 as additional dowry. On account of nonfulfilment thereof, the daughter of the complainant was administered poisonous substance and was done to death in her matrimonial house.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR of the present case came into existence after more than 8 months of the alleged incident under the order of the learned Magistrate on the basis of the application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.There is no explanation about the delay in lodging the FIR and it is merely explained that the complainant had made hectic efforts to lodge the FIR by informing to the police. However, the FIR was not lodged, even after conducting inquest and postmortem report of the deceased. It is further submitted that according to the postmortem report, no external injury was found on the body of the deceased. Hence it appears that the victim has taken some poisonous substance in her matrimonial house.

¶10

It is further submitted that so far only three prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of which, two prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case as mentioned in the FIR. There is no reason to administer any poisonous substance by the applicant to his wife when his three minor children are living with their parents. The trial is proceeding in snail's pace when the applicant is regularly appearing before the court below. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.2.2016 having no criminal history to his credit

¶11

deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail he will cooperate with the trial and will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra the learned A.G.A. has contended that the applicant being the husband of the deceased was normally bound to protect the life and security of the victim who is wife of the applicant. It is further contended that long incarceration of the accused appellant will not mitigate or mollify the gravamen of the offence, as such, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant but without expressing any opinion of the merits, let the applicant Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Pal Alias Pintoo involved in aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during trial.

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

The applicant shall make his presence before the concerned police station on Monday in the first week of every month between 10 to 12 'O' clock to show his conduct and bonafide.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.9.2018 M. Tariq

Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Pal Alias Pintoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Pal Alias Pintoo 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Danish and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mustmeer and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Khattan Das Badhwani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kranti Kumar Singh @ Biru Vs State of U.P.

Jitin Vs State of U.P.