Allowed

Kamlesh Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2020BAIL/1047/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Kamlesh Sonkar, husband of the deceased, charged under Section 498A and 304B IPC for dowry death. Noting lack of injuries on postmortem and prima facie satisfaction of evidence regarding tampering, the court ordered release on personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Kamlesh Sonkar was released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties.

Kamlesh Sonkar Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1047 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Kamlesh Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manohar Prasad Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Applicant is the husband of the deceased; the allegation against the applicant is that he and other family members subjected the deceased to harassment and torture; the deceased was subjected to sever beating, consequently, she succumbed to her injuries; the marriage is of May 2014, the deceased succumbed on 1 September 2015; it is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that initially a closure report was filed, on protest the case came to be registered; the postmortem report does not reflect any external injury; the cause of death is coma due to brain hemorrhage; as per the statement of the Medical Expert, there is no internal or external injury; the death is not result of injury; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case, hence the applicant is entitled for bail; the applicant having no other reported criminal antecedent is languishing in jail since 7.12.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Let the applicant- Kamlesh Sonkar involved in Case Crime No. 207 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties (one should be of his family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court

¶10

concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.1.2020 S.Prakash

Kamlesh Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Sonkar 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

Sonmati Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Ojha Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Seema Devi Vs State of U.P.

Maya Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P.