Allowed

Amit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2019BAIL/17672/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of Amit, accused in a dowry death case involving Sections 498-A and 304 IPC. Being the husband of the deceased who alleged suicide, the applicant having no criminal history, the Court found it a fit case for bail upon furnishing bond and sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions of appearing in court and not interfering with witnesses.

Amit Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17672 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri H.P. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B, 323, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act by the informant against six accused persons namely, Amit, Meghanlal, Sumit, Arjun, Jyotsana and unknown alleging that the marriage of deceased Reena was solemnized with Amit before 5-6 years, they demanded dowry as rupees two lacs and a car from the deceased for which the deceased was being tortured by them and on 19.10.2018 they killed her by setting her on fire pouring kerosene oil. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Section 498-A, 304 and 201 IPC.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband of deceased. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegations against the applicant. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present matter. Statement of Mohanlal (complainant/father of deceased) was recorded (annexed at page no. 46 of bail application), he stated that marriage of deceased Reena was solemnized before seven years of incident. Deceased has committed suicide herself by setting her on fire pouring kerosene oil. Deceased was died after seven years of her marriage. Statement of Ayush (son of applicant and deceased) was recorded (annexed at page no. 33 of bail application) she stated that mother (deceased) wanted to see fair (mela) at Nawabganj, residence of his aunt (mausi); father refused, hence she poured kerosene oil herself and set on fire. He also stated that at the time of funeral, grandfather (nana) and other family members were present. He is languishing in jail since 28.2.2019 (near about two months) 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 Amit involved in Case Crime No. 253 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304, 201 IPC, P.S. Bhuta, District Bareilly 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 :- 26.4.2019 A. Singh

Amit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Umesh @ Kajariya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Pal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudha @ Rubi Vs State of U.P.

Jaan Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Urmila Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mumtaz Vs State of U.P.