Allowed

Naim Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2020BAIL/23332/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to the applicant in a prosecution for dowry-related offences including suicide. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits, imposing standard conditions regarding evidence tampering and attendance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in case crime no. 563 of 2019 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to bail conditions.

Naim Khan Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23332 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Naim Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dur Vijay Singh,Qamrul Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant - Naim Khan with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in case crime no. 563 of 2019 under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Mahoba, District - Mahoba, during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

The first informant Kallu Ali (father of the deceased) has lodged an FIR dated 6.11.2019 alleging therein that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the present applicant on 11.5.2013 as per Muslim rituals and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given, as per his capacity, but the in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with the dowry. After marriage, when his daughter went to her in-laws' house, they demanded a motorcycle. As the time passed, she was blessed with two children namely, daughter Kajal and son Chotu. On 2.8.2019, he was in Nasik (Maharashtra) and had received a message from Mohaba that his daughter had died. He saw the dead body of his daughter in the mortuary. After inquiry, he came to know that her daughter had been killed and hanged by her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. After postmortem, he took the dead body of his daughter to his village and cremated there.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the alleged incident took place on 2.8.2019, inquest was conducted on 3.8.2019 and postmortem on the same day i.e. 3.8.2019. At a belated stage, the first informant had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 3.9.2019 with a prayer to register an FIR against four accused. On the aforesaid application, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an order dated 16.9.2019 directing to register an FIR against the present applicant. In pursuance thereof, the first information report has been lodged on 6.11.2019 against the present applicant, his mother, sister and brother-in-law. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the first information report has been lodged, after thought, on the basis of false and frivolous

¶9

allegations. At the time of inquest and postmortem, the informant was present but he had not taken any endeavour to file an FIR at that time for some ulterior motive best known to him. Prior to the date of alleged incident, there was no complaint with respect to demand of dowry. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it is stated that the applicant is a taxi driver and on 3.8.2019 he was going to Kanpur from Mohaba and on the way, he received a telephonic call with regard to death of his wife. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of the Court to the statement of independent witnesses namely, Shiv Narain Sen son of Pati Lal, Mohan Kushwaha son of Late Nathu Kushwaha and Ghanshyam son of Munna Srivas, who have stated in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that both the parties are very poor and there was a little possibility of giving and taking dowry. They have further stated that it is difficult for them to say as to what happened between the husband and wife which led the wife to take such a drastic step to end her life. It is contended that no independent witness has supported the allegations as made in the first information report. It is submitted that the applicant has two small children and at present they are living with their grandmother and he has to look after them. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and there is no apprehension of his absconding or hampering the trial in any manner. The applicant is in jail since 12.11.2019.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that his innocence cannot be adjudicated at pre trail stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence and there is likelihood of his involvement in other case. In case he is released on bail, he may misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Naim Khan be released on bail in case crime no. 563 of 2019 under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Mahoba, District - Mahoba, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner

¶14

whatsoever.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.10.2020

¶20

Naim Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naim Khan 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

Aakash Vs State of U.P.

Istakar Vs State of U.P.

Akash Aka Akku Vs State of U.P.

Anil Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Yadav @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.