Allowed

Mahesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2021BAIL/20019/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application involves a charge under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC regarding alleged dowry harassment and suicide. The court examined the prosecution version and the applicant's defense of false implication. Relying on Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and considering the nature of the case, the court allowed the bail granting a personal bond. The applicant must not tamper with witnesses and

What did the court decide?

The applicant is to be released on bail on a personal bond subject to conditions to not tamper with witnesses and to provide sureties within a month of court reopening.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20019 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mahesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.45 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304 B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Achhnera, District Agra, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

As per prosecution version two daughters of informant, namely Rubi and Kajal married with two sons of applicant, namely Shivam and Satyam. The informant alleged that applicant and other family members have tortured the deceased/victim for bringing the dowry and the applicant is responsible to force her daughter to commit suicide.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is father-in-law of deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no allegation regarding demand of dowry; the story of demand of dowry is not possible as two daughters of the informant are married to applicant's two sons on the same day and making dowry demand from one daughter and no demand from other daughter whereas no four wheeler has been given to either of the sons; the applicant neither demanded a four wheeler in dowry nor he ever harassed the deceased/victim. It is further argued that deceased was not happy with this marriage; there is no evidence regarding cruelty and even demand made by the applicant. It is next argued that from the statement of independent witnesses, namely Bahoran Singh, Pradeep, Ram Das and Pratap Singh, it is clear that deceased had committed suicide and the applicant has no concern with the dispute between husband and wife. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the informant opposed the bail application and argued that on account of dowry demand, victim/deceased was upset and when demand was not fulfilled, then the applicant with other co-accused persons done to death the victim. Deceased died in the house of applicant in unnatural circumstances within seven years of their marriage.

¶10

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the mandate laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Mahesh, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 2.12.2021 Meenu

¶19

Digitally signed by Justice Deepak Verma Date: 2021.12.04 18:02:45 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Sahani @ Patru and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Abhinav Yadav @ Pawan Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sunita Vs State of U.P

Pujari @ Pujari Nona Vs State of U.P.

Dharamveer Vs State of U.P.