Allowed

Ankit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2018BAIL/24238/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the death of the applicant's wife attributed to suicide but note: the court granted bail to the applicant (Ankit), an SSBB constable accused of dowry harassment and culpable homicide, applying stringent bail conditions and directing the trial court to conclude the case within six months.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. one lac with two sureties under specific conditions and the trial was directed to conclude within six months.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24238 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Mishra,Birendra Singh Khokher,Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the deceased Varsha was the wife of the applicant. Marriage between the applicant and the deceased was solemnized on 22.1.2014. He next submitted that in the FIR, the allegations have been made against the applicant and his other family members that they were demanding an Alto car as additional dowry from the deceased and her parents and on account of non-fulfilment of the aforesaid demand of additional dowry she was being tortured and maltreated in her matrimonial home by them and ultimately she was done to death by them on 6.12.2015. The post mortem report of the deceased shows that there appears to be no antemortem injury, excepting ligature mark. The death is stated to be asphyxia as a result of hanging. He next submitted that the applicant is a constable in Shashatr Seema Suraksha Bal (S.S.B) and presently he is posted in Dumka (Jharkhand) which is a naxalite area and he could not take his wife to the place of his posting, hence his wife committed suicide.

¶7

He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 8.1.2016 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶8

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

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and

¶10

considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶11

Let the applicant-Ankit involved in Case Crime No. 1192 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Noida, district-Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.one lac with two sureties (one should of his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) 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. (ii) 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.

¶13

(iii) 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.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 in accordance with law. However, considering the fact and circumstances of the case the

¶15

trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the

¶16

date of production of certified copy of this order before the trial court.

¶17

The applicant is directed to produce the certified copy of this order before the trial court for its compliance.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Faridul

Ankit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit 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

Vinod Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Arjun Dev Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Smt. Asha Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Matgulla Vs State of U.P.

Ram Autar Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.