Allowed

Deepchand v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2020BAIL/38803/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge court considered a bail application in a case involving dowry death allegations. The court granted bail on a personal bond with two sureties, imposing strict conditions regarding court appearances and trial conduct to prevent abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties upon strict conditions regarding court appearances and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38803 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Deepchand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant, who is father in law of the deceased, who is involved in case crime no. 205 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Nauhjhil, District-Mathura is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. The FIR was registered on 29.05.2020 by One Sri Har Narayan Singh, father of the deceased against the applicant, who is father-inlaw of the deceased and six other persons levelling omnibus allegation that there was a demand of Rs. 2 lakhs as an additional dowry from the deceased Bharti. But fact remains that Bharti Singh, deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself and there is no other mark of injury except the ligature mark over her person. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the site plan, which clearly shows that the applicant was residing distinctly on account of family partition dated 16.01.2019 which is annexed as Annexure-10 to the application. The husband of the deceased as raising construction over his share/portion and it is just possible that he might have demanded certain amount of money from his in-laws and that might have sparked between the relationship of husband and wife. The case of the applicant is quite distinguishable from the case of husband-Prakash. There is no dying declaration or suicide note of the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 22.07.2020 and has no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶8

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.

¶9

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant Deepchand , 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:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(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.

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.11.2020

¶19

Abhishek Sri.

Deepchand v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepchand 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Jatav (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P.

Mutura Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jaswant @ Kalyan Vs State of U.P.

Imrat Vs State of U.P.

Smt Vidya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Subhawati Devi Vs State of U.P.