Allowed

Atul Jaiswal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2020BAIL/37458/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant charged under sections 498A, 304B IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act, allowing release on personal bond without immediate sureties pending court normalization, while imposing strict conditions to ensure trial attendance and preventing abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Atul Jaiswal was enlarged on bail on execution of a personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of courts is restored, subject to strict conditions of presence and trial condu

Atul Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37458 of 2020 Applicant :- Atul Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Verma

¶3

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶4

Case called out in revised call. None has appeared on behalf of complainant.

¶5

Heard Shri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present bail application the applicant Atul Jaiswal is seeking his bail in connection with Case Crime No.145 of 2020, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Jansa, District-Varanasi.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the deceased got married with one Mukul Jaiswal on 12.12.2019. Further submission is that after a misrepresentation that the husband is in government service, this marriage was solemnized but in fact he was working as a salesman in a wine shop. It is contended that there was a regular scuffle between the husband and wife which ultimately resulted into the physical assault. It is alleged that there was additional demand of one motorcycle and Rs.2 lacs.

¶8

Contention is that the applicant is devar and the deceased died on account of hanging. There is singular ligature mark around the neck of the deceased which is the sole cause of her death. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant too is working as a salesman in a wine shop at Gyanpur Road, Bhadohi and resides in the shop itself. It is argued that there is a general role of maltreatment and torture attributed to all family members of the husband. There is no dying declaration or suicide note left by the deceased. The husband is in jail. It is also contended that mother-in-law has been admitted on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41141 of 2020 (Shiv Kumari vs. State). The applicant is in jail since 09.07.2020 having no criminal antecedents.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above facts.

¶10

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 a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Atul Jaiswal, 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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

¶16

THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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-:

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 1.12.2020 M. Kumar

Atul Jaiswal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Jaiswal 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

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P.

Rupesh Vs State of U.P.

Pooja Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Gupta Vs Stat

Kunal Vs State of U.P.