Allowed

Jay Ram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019BAIL/48704/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge, while declining to express an opinion on merits due to conflicting arguments about witness pressure, examined the bail application of a father-in-law falsely implicated in a matrimonial death case and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, pressurizing witnesses, and failure to appear in court.

Jay Ram Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48704 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Jay Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Singh,Saral Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajneesh Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. No charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant. The applicant has been summoned to face trial on the basis of an application moved under section 319 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that there is general allegation against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to him. In postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been shown asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The deceased has committed suicide herself. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. It has further been submitted that co-accused Bablu, husband of the deceased has already been released on bail by another bench of this court vide order dated 22.2.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40555 of 2018, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 23.9.2019.

¶8

Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is making pressure upon the witnesses and a complaint has also been filed against the applicant in which he has been summoned to face the trial, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Jay Ram involved in Case Crime No. 131 of 2016, under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kurra, District Mainpuri be released on bail on his

¶11

furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶13

He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶14

He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶15

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.12.2019

¶17

Masarrat

Jay Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Ram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambabu Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Singh @ Pooti Singh Vs State of U.P.

Upendra Singh @ Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Asarfi Devi Alias Guddi Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ramwati Alias Reeta Vs State of U.P.