Allowed

Govind @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2019BAIL/51572/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge granted bail to an applicant alleged of dowry death. The court noted it was a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on merits, considering the general nature of allegations and the release of a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each with conditions against tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51572 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Govind @ Golu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sacchida Nand Prajapati,Anand Pati Tiwari

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and vakalatnama filed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav on behalf of the complainant are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is devar of the deceased. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured the deceased. It has further been submitted that there is general allegation against the applicant, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. In the postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased has been shown asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. The deceased has committed suicide herself. The applicant has not compelled the deceased to commit suicide. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The co-accused Rajneesh Kumar, the jeth of the deceased, has already been released on bail by another bench of this court vide order dated 30.9.2019 in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 40786 of 2019, therefore, applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is in jail since 16.2.2019.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant and other co accused have committed the alleged offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Govind @ Golu involved in Case Crime No.80 of 2019 under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4

¶12

D.P.Act, Police Station Ajeetmal District Auraiya be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and he will cooperate with the trial.

¶15

The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Gss

Govind @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind @ Golu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thakari Vs State of U.P.

Munni Lal Vs State of U.P.

Durga Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Parihar Vs State of U.P.

Jai Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sadawati Vs State of U.P.