Allowed

Ramjeet Bind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 May 2019BAIL/36532/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed the second bail application of the accused in a dowry death case, releasing him on bond. The court directed the lower court to decide the case expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C. in light of recent Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on personal bond with two sureties; trial court directed to decide case expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36532 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Ramjeet Bind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Singh Kushwa,Ranjeet Kumar,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahesh Sharma,Rama Shanker Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Satish Kumar, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶6

This second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.518 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 306, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur.

¶7

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 19.05.2017.

¶8

The contention of the counsel for the applicant in the second bail application is that though the applicant is the husband of the deceased, but the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant only under Sections 498-A, 306, IPC and ¾ D.P. Act. Further contention is that the cause of death of the wife is a train accident. The deceased has left behind her, the two children who are at present is living with the parents of the present applicant. The parents of the present applicant is also a senior citizen. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.07.2016 with no previous criminal history.

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.07.2016, 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.

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant Ramjeet Bind 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.5.2019 VKG

Ramjeet Bind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjeet Bind 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

Meenu Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Jasveer @ Jasvendra Vs State of U.P.

Iqbal Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jahid Ali Vs State of U.P.