Allowed

Rajesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2018BAIL/42801/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42801 of 2018 before Court No. 27. The applicant, accused in a dowry case, sought bail alleging false implications. The court allowed the bail application without expressing an opinion on merits but imposed conditions regarding tampering with evidence and interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and non-appearance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42801 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 14.7.2017 by the informant against six accused persons namely, Rajesh (husband), Mahadevi (mother-in-law), Kanta (jeth), Mukesh (jeth), Daya (jethani) and Babita (jethani) alleging that the marriage of victim was solemnized with Rajesh, they demanded dowry from the victim for which the victim was being tortured and beaten by them, she received injuries including one incised wound.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is the husband. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegations against the applicant. On the next day of marriage, victim said to the applicant that she does not want to marry with him, she has love affairs with Rohit Chaudhary. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present matter. F.I.R. was lodged after five months with explaining any delay. He is languishing in jail since 17.10.2018 (near about one month) having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Rajesh involved in Case Crime No. 472 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 324, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.11.2018

¶18

A. Singh

Rajesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Shoeb Chisti Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Kharwar Neta Vs State of U.P.

Mahboob Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Vs State of U.P.

Bantu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Raj Gagan Vs State of U.P.