Allowed

Irshad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2018BAIL/32179/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the applicant sought enlargement during trial for offenses under IPC 498A, 304B, 315 and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court allowed bail subject to ten specific conditions regarding court attendance, preventing adjournments during evidence, and adherence to trial scheduling.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to ten specific conditions including attendance rules and consequences for misuse of bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32179 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Irshad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gayyoor Ali,Rajiv Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 767 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B, 315 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Gangoh, District- Saharanpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant is Dewar of the deceased. The FIR was registered by brother of the deceased against three named accused persons including the present applicant u/s 304B, 498A and 3/4 D.P. Act. General role has been assigned to all the accused persons on account of unspecified amount of additional dowry in the FIR. It is further submitted that the deceased died on account of asphyxia as result of ante mortem strangulation. It is further submitted that the applicant is a young man and working with one Contractor of Roorkee and he has no concern with the internal matters of her brother's family affair. The husband, namely, Mohd. Saleem is languishing in Jail. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 23.03.2018.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Irshad , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE

¶12

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 :- 24.8.2018 Nisha

Irshad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad 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

Gajju Vs State of U.P.

Sateesh Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Kunwar Singh @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Ayub Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhole Shankar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.