Allowed

Amit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2021BAIL/16260/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the second bail application of Amit, husband of a deceased suicide victim alleged to be caused by dowry harassment. Granted bail after noting the prolonged incarceration and trial delay, subject to strict conditions to ensure presence and expeditious trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Applicant allowed to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions to ensure trial attendance and expeditious conclusion.

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

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16260 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This is second bail application filed by applicant Amit seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 625 of 2017, under Sections 304-B, 498A and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S Khurja, District Bulandshahr during pendency of S.T. No. 442 of 2017 (State Vs. Raju and Others) arising out of above mentioned case crime number.

¶7

First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 2.1.2019. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:

¶8

"Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant in Court today, is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Mr. M.C. Singh along with Mr. Dushyant Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Amit, who is the husband, for seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 4421 of 2017 (State Vs. Raju and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 625 of 2017, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Khurja, District-Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the aforesaid trial.

¶11

It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Mamta on 04.03.2017 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of four months from the date of the marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 09.07.2017, in which the wife of the applicant died as she committed suicide by drowning herself. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 10.07.2017 on the information given by the brother of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 10.07.2017 by Vijendra the brother of the deceased and was registered as Case Crime No. 625 of 2017, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Khurja, District-Bulandshahr.

¶12

In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons, namely, Amit (the husband), Raju Singh (the father-in-law), Rama (the mother-in-law), Payal (the Nand) and Akash (the Devar) of deceased were nominated as named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 10.07.2017. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of drowning. However, no ante-mortem external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 10.10.2017 against two of the named accused namely Amit, the husband and Raju Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased. Upon submission of the chargesheet, cognizance was taken by the court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 15.11.2017. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2017 (State Vs. Raju and others) came to be registered. The same is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-IInd, Bulandshahr. On date, three prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, but he is innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 17.07.2017. As such, he has undergone more than 1 year and 5 months of incarceration. He next submits that the occurrence has taken place at the parental home of the deceased. Therefore, no offence under section 304 B I.P.C. can be said to have been committed by the present applicant. The deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by drowning herself. The absence of any external antemortem injury on the body of the deceased denotes the bona-fide of the present applicant. On the aforesaid factual premises, it is thus urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that on the date three prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined, who have clearly implicated the present applicant. The trial arising out of the aforesaid case crime number is at an advanced stage and interest of justice shall better be served in case, a direction is issued to the Court below to expedite the trial itself instead of considering the bail application of the applicant on merits.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record and the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find any good ground to exercise my discretion. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.

¶16

However, at this stage, it is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within one year provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.

¶17

Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance. "

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant submits that by means of order dated 2.1.2019, this Court had specifically directed Court below

¶19

to expeditiously conclude the trial preferably within a period of one year. However, inspite of fact that a period of more than two years and six months have expired from the date of passing of order dated 2.1.2019, above mentioned sessions trail has not yet been decided. He has then invited the attention of Court to the fact, that on date, six prosecution witness have been examined. He has relied upon the statement of P.W.2, which is on record from page 65 of the paper book. He has referred to page 67 of paper book, wherein P.W.2 has categorically stated that no demand of dowry was made by applicant. Learned counsel for applicant lastly contends that minimum sentence prescribed for an offence under section 304 IPC is seven years. Applicant is in custody since 17.7.2017. As such, applicant has undergone almost four years of incarceration. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for bail. He however could not dispute the facts as noted above, as well as the submission urged by learned counsel for applicant.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as acquisitions made regarding the complicity of the applicant but without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicants have made out a case for bail. Accordingly the bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant Amit , be released on bail in 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 interest of justice:-

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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

¶26

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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 6.7.2021 Arshad

Amit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chandra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tauheed Ahmad Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Jaylal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Abhay Pal Singh and Another Vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Sripal and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha and 3 Others