Court granted bail to applicant Harendra in a maintenance and cruelty case under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, directing furnishing of a personal bond and sureties while observing that the order does not reflect on case merits.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties to satisfy magistrate/court concerned subject to standard conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10381 of 2020
Applicant :- Harendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Yadav
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Umesh Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Azad Singh, learned AGA, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards annexure-8 to the affidavit accompanying this bail application, wherein P.W.-1 has stated that the applicant himself has married the deceased out of love affair and no dowry was given by him to the applicant. It is thus, submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.5.2017. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant- Harendra, be released on bail in Case Crime No.0095 of 2017 (Sessions Trial No.444 of 2017), under Sections498-A, 304-B, 323, 308 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Saraimeer, District- Azamgarh, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
Order Date :- 22.9.2020 Dev/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant satisfies the prima facie requirement for bail by furnishing a bond and sureties.
Whether the Assessing Magistrate has exercised discretion in granting bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶8
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Harendra
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vivek Kumar Singh
Parties & counsel
