Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2021BAIL/27567/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Sonu, an accused in Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act cases. Bail was granted considering the deceased's dying declaration exonerating the applicant, with conditions regarding attendance, undertaking against delay, and fear of attrition without sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each after restoration of normal functioning of courts.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27567 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Satya Narayan Yadav, 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 husbandinvolved in case crime no. 277 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Nasirpur, District-Firozabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.10.2019.

¶7

Contention raised by the counsel that the FIR was got registered by Smt Saroj Devi in the aforesaid sections of the IPC against all the named accused person including the applicant with the usual allegation of dwory demand. Fact remains that within seven years of marriage, she has died at the residence of husband in a mysterious and unnatural circumstances. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was two dying declaration of the deceased in which she has exonerated the present applicant from the charges of dowry related atrocities. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the deceased has delivered a baby girl, out of which Rambeer, father-in-law and Heera, brother-in-law(dewar) were constantly quarrelling. In dying declaration of the deceased it is clear that Heera, brother-in-law has poured the kerosene oil and Rambeer, father-in-law has set her ablase but her husband has tried to safe her life by covering her from blanket. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the coaccused Rambeer and Heera.

¶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- Sonu , 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:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/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/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶13

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶14

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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/APPLICANTS IS/ARE 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 HIS/HER/THEIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(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/APPLICANTS.

¶16

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

¶17

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/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶18

The applicant/applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is/are restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 29.1.2021

¶23

Abhishek Sri.

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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

Ishaq Ali Vs State of U.P.

Hari Kishan @ Hari Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Ahirwar Alias Siddharth Ahirwar Vs State of U.P.

Ikrar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sahil Bharti @ Raj Vs State of U.P.