Allowed

Kaushal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2019BAIL/50088/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a second bail application in a case involving Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to prevent tampering and harassment of witnesses. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with conditions; trial court directed to expedite proceedings.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50088 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Kaushal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Yadav,Sunil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard Sri O. P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 169 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Merapur, District Farrukhabad. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 53.5.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 7011 of 2017.

¶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 learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant in the present second bail application is to the effect that even though the applicant is the husband, however, he is in jail since 24.8.2016 with no previous criminal history; even though the cause of death is asphyxia as ante-mortem hanging, but the contention is that there are no other injuries on the body of the deceased as per the postmortem report and the hyoid bone was found intact; the wife (deceased) committed suicide. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 24.8.2016 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 Kaushal involved in the aforesaid case crime

¶14

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:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 8.3.2019 Kuldeep

Kaushal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal 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

Surjeet Vs State of U.P.

Harnarayan Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Amir Asrar @ Akku Vs State of U.P.

Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Shakib Vs State of U.P.