Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2021BAIL/10008/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving dowry death was allowed. Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions, including not tampering with evidence, attending hearings, and complying with trial court mandates.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding conduct, attendance, and trial cooperation.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10008 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Rahul, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.34 of 2019, under Section(s) 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S.- Pinahat, DistrictAgra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that only general allegations have been made against the applicant. Submission is that the applicant had neither demanded any dowry nor had made any cruelty upon the deceased. It is also evident from the perusal of the F.I.R. that only general allegations of demand of dowry has been made and nothing specific has been mentioned. Contention is that in the statement of one of the independent witness namely Tularam it has come that being neighbour of the applicant he had never heard any quarrel regarding demand of dowry rather he stated that the deceased was unhappy with the applicant's house and therefore she had committed suicide. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents as stated in para27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.07.2019.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made

¶10

at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- …………., 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) 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.

¶15

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C.

¶16

(V) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶17

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶19

verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

The bail application is allowed.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.3.2021 shiv

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Deependra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rajkumari Vs State of U.P.