Allowed

Kaushlesh Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 May 2019BAIL/36391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, the court granted bail to the accused husband alleging poisoning in a 2015 case. Despite the state's opposition, bail was allowed with conditions, and the trial court was directed to conclude the case expeditiously citing Supreme Court precedents to ensure speedy disposal.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties; case directed to be concluded expeditiously.

Kaushlesh Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36391 of 2018 Applicant :- Kaushlesh Kumar Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms Sanyukta Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶4

This second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Session Trial No. 85 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.04 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Holagarh, District Allahabad.

¶5

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 21.03.2017.

¶6

The counsel for the applicant has pressed this second bail application on the ground that while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, a specific and categorical direction was issued to the trial court concerned to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of one years, in accordance with section 309 Cr.P.C., however, the trial has not yet been concluded. Further contention is that though the applicant is the husband of the deceased, but as per the post mortem report there were no injuries on the body of the deceased. Viscera was preserved and subsequently the Melathiyan Insecticide poison was found, copy of which is annexed on page no.26 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of the doctor which shows that the case of death of the deceased is poison i.e. Melathiyan Insecticide. It is not clear that the said poison was self induce or given by some body else. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2015 with no previous criminal history.

¶7

Learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2015, with no previous criminal history, 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.

¶9

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

¶10

Let the applicant Kaushlesh Kumar Upadhyay 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:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

The applicant will participate and cooperate with the trial, and will not seek any adjournment whatsoever. In case he remain absent or does not participate and cooperate with trial, even on a single date, the bail as granted shall stands automatically vacated.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.5.2019 VKG

Kaushlesh Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushlesh Kumar Upadhyay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Chhottan Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Neelu Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Shrawan Kumar @ Sarwan Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chandra @ Bau Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pinki Vs State of U.P.