Allowed

Jagram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2019BAIL/10233/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant, Jagram, in a criminal case involving dowry death allegations. Despite the severity of the offence (dowry death within seven years of marriage), the court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits, subject to conditions regarding cooperation in trial and non-tampering of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2018 upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation and non-tampering.

Jagram Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10233 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Jagram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Veer Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for dowry death with general allegations being father-in-law of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by Lal Bahadur on 24.4.2018, his daughter Janki was married to Amarjeet and since after marriage, she was being treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of Motorcycle and on 21.4.2018 at about 8:00 p.m., her husband and in-laws after beating her with kicks, fists and lathi-danda, administered poisonous substance to her, resulting in her death; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that no specific role has been assigned to applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating deceased with cruelty for nonfulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for nonfulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant may not be beneficiary of Motorcycle allegedly demanded, as dowry; that alleged demand of Motorcycle, if any, may have made by husband of deceased; that applicant was living separately; that death of Janki during treatment at Medical College, Gorakhpur has been reported by husband of deceased and inquest report has been prepared at his instance; that in post mortem report cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved and as per viscera report, aluminium phosphide poison was found in parts of her viscera; that it appears that due to dispute with her husband, she was administered poison or consumed poison; that case of applicant is distinguishable from husband of deceased; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 9.11.2018.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed prayer of bail in this case of dowry death within 7 years of marriage .

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let applicant Jagram be released on bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sonaha, District Basti on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.3.2019 Tamang

Jagram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagram 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

Smt. Babita Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Giri Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Patel Vs State of U.P.

Udaiveer @ Baba Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Shankar Gond Vs State of U.P.

Archana Vs State of U.P.