Allowed

Jugendra v. State of Up

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2021BAIL/16244/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held the applicant made out a case for bail in a matrimonial offence where dowry demand was not substantiated. Granted release on personal bond without sureties temporarily till court functioning restored, requiring sureties within a month thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond without sureties initially, with direction to furnish sureties within one month after court functioning is restored.

Jugendra Vs State of Up — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16244 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jugendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Jeet Singh,Sarvajeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.86 of 2019, under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Gunnaur, DistrictSambhal is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that there is tangent remark at the end of the FIR that there is a demand of dowry. In the entire FIR, there is no allegation and reason for the alleged commission of marpeet and maltreatment. In the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the informantKishan Lal, there is no allegation of any dowry related harassment. The deceased died on account of hanging. As per opinion of the doctor, she died on account of asphyxia as a result of hanging. Except the ligature mark around the neck, there is no injury over her person. In the absence of specific dowry related demand, the applicant is languishing in jail under section 304-B IPC. Fact remains that neither in the FIR nor in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement, there is any demand of dowry. The deceased has left behind one child aged about two and half years. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.03.2019.

¶8

Learned A.G.A 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

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Jugendra , who is involved in case crime no.86 of 2019, under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Gunnaur, District-Sambhal, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two

¶11

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 THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM 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

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

emergent condition-:

¶21

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

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Sumit S

Jugendra v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugendra v. State of Up

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

Akshan Vs State of U.P.

Nathu Lal Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Pratap Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Serazuddin Vs State of U.P.

Satya Pal Vs State of U.P.