Allowed

Noor Hasan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2018BAIL/32649/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bail application in a dowry death case (Sections 304-B, 498A IPC). Applicant, father-in-law of deceased, sought bail. Court granted bail emphasizing speedy trial with strict conditions to ensure presence throughout evidence and specific sessions, stating applicant has made out a case for bail given his relationship with deceased.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Noor Hasan released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and case conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32649 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Noor Hasan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.62 of 2018, under Section 304-B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Sirsakalar, District-Jalaun is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased against the applicant and five other family members. As per FIR, the marriage of the daughter of complainant was solemnized with the son of the applicant on 06.03.2017. The allegation is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the members of her matrimonial house in connection with the demand of one motorcycle and a gold chain as an additional dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the said demand, she was tortured till her death. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and is a senior citizen. General and generic role has been assigned to all the family members of the husband who is languishing in jail. As per post-mortem report, the cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Being a father-in-law of the deceased, he can be said to be the least beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. He is in jail since 05.07.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶8

Learned A.G.A 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 totality of the circumstances, relationship of the applicant with the deceased and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Noor Hasan, involved in case crime no.62 of 2018, under Section 304-B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Sirsakalar, District-Jalaun be released on bail 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 EFFECT THAT HE 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.

¶12

(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 IPC.

¶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., 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, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶14

(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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(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.

¶16

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.8.2018 Sumit S

Noor Hasan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Hasan 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

Vikas Bind Vs State of U.P.

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ajor Vs State of U.P.

Gajraj Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.

Bindu Devi Vs State of U.P.