Allowed

Sadhu and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2021BAIL/27887/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail to the applicants in a dowry death case involving Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Bail granted without immediate sureties, to be furnished after courts resume normal functioning, along with strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by personal bond; sureties to be furnished within one month of normal court functioning.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27887 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sadhu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhagwan Das Sharma,Prabhat Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prabhat Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in Case Crime No. 159 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationTilhar, District- Shahjanhapur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicants are in jail since 7.6.2020 & 20.6.2020.

¶7

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the husband, Rohit got married with deceased on 16.4.20219. There was a demand of additional dowry but from the F.I.R. it is clear that on the eve of Holi she herself was at her parental place where the applicant approached on 16.3.2020. There was certain conversation with regard to the dowry and out of sear frustration she has committed suicide at her parental place. The husband is in jail. It is highly unlikely that father-in-law and Jeth would go to the daughter-in-law's parental place and demand the additional dowry. The fact remains that she has committed suicide by hanging herself at her parental place. It is further contended that both the applicants separately reside and have distinct domestic identity and they would not be a beneficiary of additional dowry.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicants- Sadhu and Mohit , who are involved in Case Crime No. 159 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Tilhar,

¶11

District- Shahjanhapur, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two 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 APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A I.P.C.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR 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 THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A I.P.C.

¶15

(iv) THE 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 APPLICANTS 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 THEM 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

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

¶19

The applicants 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.1.2021 Vikas

Sadhu and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu and Another 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

Pappu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Surya Bhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of Up

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Parmila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh @ Shashi Kant Tiwari Vs State of U.P.