Allowed

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2020BAIL/36253/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Ram Naresh, accused in a dowry harassment case under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC ending in the victim's death. Citing Dataram Singh, the court held bail was made out but imposed strict conditions to ensure trial participation, initially waiving sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond without sureties initially, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and trial conduct, with sureties required within a month of court restoration.

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36253 of 2020 Applicant :- Ram Naresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sumer Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Ram Sumer Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶4

The present bail application filed on behalf of Ram Naresh who is the husband of the deceased and is seeking his bail in connection with Case Crime No.138 of 2020, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Kotwali Nagar Banda, District-Banda.

¶5

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the informant Sundar Rajak has lodged the present F.I.R. on 01.03.2020 for the alleged incident said to have taken place on 28.2.2020 against as many as eight persons including the applicant, with the allegation that there was a demand of Rs.5 lacs as additional dowry and also the harassment and torture of the deceased, due to which the entire family of the husband has been roped in.

¶6

Further contention is that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant in the year 2014 and for a period of six years she remained issueless. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-6 to the petition, in which it has been clearly mentioned that on account of her infertility the deceased was undergoing treatment by the husband, but unfortunately she could not conceive. It was argued that in the rural areas it would amount to social stigma, if a lady remains issueless for a log period of time and therefore out of sheer frustration the deceased has committed suicide. Post-mortem report reveals that there is a singular ligature mark around the neck of the deceased, suggestive of the fact that the deceased has died on account of asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. There is no evidence on record that at any point of time the deceased ever made any complaint with regard to dowry or harassment. No doubt that the applicant is the husband but every unnatural death would not attract Section 304-B I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 16.3.2020 having no criminal antecedents.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by mentioning that this unfortunate incident took place at the residence of the husband and the presumption of Section 113 of the Evidence Act would go against the applicant.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out

¶9

a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Ram Naresh, who is involved in aforementioned Case Crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 IPC.

¶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., 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, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶14

(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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(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.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶18

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶19

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶20

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 26.11.2020/M. Kumar

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gabbar Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P.

Rupesh Vs State of U.P.

Pooja Vs State of U.P.