The Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving sections 498A and 304B IPC. The Court emphasized expeditious trial and invoked principles from the Apex Court judgment in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab.
Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties, subject to standard conditions and order for expeditious trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12239 of 2019
Applicant :- Ankur Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 203 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; though it is correct to say that the applicant is the husband and his wife died within seven years of marriage; however the contention is that the cause of death is hanging and there are no external injuries on the body of the deceased; the door of the room was locked from inside and it was broken and thereafter the body was taken out from the room; it is also evidence that the applicant was at the shop at the relevant time and he was summoned from his shop. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 15.2.2018 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A.
Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Ankur Jain involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 , if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Kuldeep
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused in cases under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 D. P. Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶19
2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Ankur Jain
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
