Allowed

Raghvendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2019BAIL/28539/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a second bail application by equating against the State in a case involving Sections 498A, 304B IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court granted bail with conditions, emphasizing speedy trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and referencing Supreme Court precedents on abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant on execution of a personal bond and furnishing two sureties with specific conditions including non-tampering and speedy trial.

Raghvendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28539 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Raghvendra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 556 of 20216, under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Shahpur, District Gorakhpur. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 28.04.2017.

¶7

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Contention is that applicant is the husband and death of wife is within two years of marriage. Nevertheless the fact remains that cause of death is hanging and there are no other injuries on the body of the deceased. The deceased has committed suicide and she was undergoing depression and failed to manage her twins children. The father of the girl has been examined as PW-1, who is the first informant, has been declared as hostile. Contention is that applicant is in jail since 10.09.2016 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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.

¶10

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Raghvendra Pratap Singh 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:

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible 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 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.9.2019 Ujjawal

Raghvendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghvendra Pratap Singh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sultan Khan Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Vs State of U.P.

Shabbir Sheikh Vs State of U.P.