Allowed

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2019BAIL/40603/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail in a third bail application regarding Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Applying the principle from Dataram, bail was allowed, subject to standard conditions. The trial court was directed to decide the pending case expeditiously under Cr.P.C. Section 309 following Vinod Kumar and Hussain judgments.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail granted against personal bond and two sureties; directions for expeditious disposal of case.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40603 of 2018

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 551 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Soraon, District Allahabad. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected vide order of this Court dated 11.1.2017 and 21.2.2018.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant in the third bail application is to the effect that applicant is the husband; wife has committed suicide, as the door was found locked from in side and the cause of death is ante mortem hanging with no other injury on the body of the deceased, a fact which has not been disputed by the learned AGA even though the prosecution has taken a case that window was found to be broken and the prosecution has taken a presumption that the deceased was hanged and thereafter the accused escaped by breaking open the window; there are as many as 22 witnesses, out of which till date only two witnesses have been examined. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 11.11.2014 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant .

¶10

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.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram v. State of U.P.; 2018 (3) SCC 22, 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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant Ranjeet Kumar 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:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

However, it is further 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.1.2019 Kuldeep

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kumar 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

Ram Pyare Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Amit Singh @ Gore Lal Vs State of U.P.

Brijmohan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P.

Moolveer Alias Monu Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P.