Allowed

Dharm Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2020BAIL/36142/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application in a dowry death case involving Sections 498A, 304B IPC. The High Court, considering the applicant's first-time arrest and the social context of an issueless marriage, allowed bail with strict conditions to ensure trial participation and prevent adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, conditioning strict adherence to trial schedules and prohibitions against seeking adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36142 of 2020 Applicant :- Dharm Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Vipul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶2

Heard Radhey Shyam Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶3

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 762 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Puwayan, DistrictShahjahanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶4

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that though the FIR was registered by the father of the deceased on the same day of the incident but facts remains that the deceased got married with the applicant (husband) about 4-1/2 years back but the couple was remain issueless. In the rural area for a married lady to become a issueless for a long period is a biggest social taboo/stigma and it is just possible that she was reeling under immense mental and psychological pressure. It is contended by the counsel that on the eve of Dhanteras the brother of the deceased has come to take her and the husband denied for the same. The post mortem report reveals that there is singular legature mark around her neck suggestive of the fact that she has hanged the herself. There is no other of injury over her person. Unfortunately as per prevailing circumstances in the society every unnatural death within seven years of marriage is necessarily dragged within the purview of dowry death. The applicant is in jail since 31.10.2019 and has no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶5

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. In the totality of the circumstances the married woman who remain issueless must be suffering in a mental pressure as a result she has taken this extreme step of having emulating herself.

¶7

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶8

Let the applicant Dharm Pal , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶9

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR

¶10

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.

¶11

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶12

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶13

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶15

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.11.2020/Abhishek Sri.

Dharm Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharm Pal 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

Urmila Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jeet Vs State of U.P.

Smt Shripati Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Krishnpal@ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Laxmina Vs State of U.P.