Allowed

Gajraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2018BAIL/29547/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant Gajraj involved in a case relating to dowry death and cruelty. The court framed specific conditions for release, including attendance at hearings and an undertaking not to seek adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with two sureties and bond subject to five specific conditions regarding court attendance and undertaking.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29547 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Gajraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 03 of 2018, under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Mataundh, District Banda is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is Dewar, there are as many as three persons made accused including present one. The allegation is that the deceased was subject matter of taunt and satire by her in laws for taking a less dowry. There is no demand of additional dowry, the FIR is completely silent that what additional dowry was ever demanded. Though there is case of self immolation and there is extensive burn injuries over the person. Site plan shows that there are two kitchen in the same house. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is separate and distinct unit altogether and nothing to do with the affairs of husband Prem and his wife (deceased). The applicant is poor labour has falsely implicated as per prevailing practise in the society. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 08.01.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

In view of the above, let the applicant- Gajraj be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 03 of 2018, under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Mataundh, District Banda with the following conditions:-

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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 IPC.

¶14

(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 IPC.

¶15

(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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.8.2018

¶19

Abhishek Sri.

Gajraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajraj 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

Harbansh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ashish Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Purnima Alias Poonam Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Sushma Raghav Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.