Allowed

Gyanendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2020BAIL/4445/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application challenging arrest in a dowry-related murder case, the High Court, without expressing an opinion on merits, granted bail to the applicant due to reasonable apprehension of witness tampering and prima facie satisfaction of the charge. The bail was granted subject to strict conditions including appearance in court and undertaking not to abuse liberty.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and undertaking to appear in court on fixed dates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4445 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Gyanendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

As per the prosecution case, applicant is husband of the deceased; the marriage is of May 2017; deceased was killed by hanging on being subjected to torture and harassment for dowry.

¶7

It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging; hyoid bone is intact; statements of family members of the deceased and independent witnesses do not ascribe to the prosecution case that deceased was subjected to harassment and torture for dowry; applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail since 20.09.2017, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Let the applicant, Gyanendra, involved in Case Crime No. 802 of 2017, under Section 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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

Order Date :- 29.1.2020 K.K. Maurya

Gyanendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra 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

Yogesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ankush Mangal Vs State of U.P.

Ankush Mangal @ Ankush Singal Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tahjeeb @ Tahjeeb Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another