Allowed

rajpati vishwakarma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2021BAIL/30583/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. allowed bail to Rajpati Vishwakarma, aged 60+, father-in-law of deceased in a dowry death case (u/s 498A, 304B, 306 IPC), relying on Art 21 and Dataram Singh SC. Bail granted with personal bond (sureties later) and strict conditions including mandatory appearance and no adjournments, with trial to conclude within one year of release.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond with two sureties (to be furnished later) subject to detailed conditions on appearance, no adjournments, and trial completion.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30583 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajpati Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Bhushan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Chandra Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.27 of 2020, u/s 498A, 304B, 306 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Kandharapur, District-Azamgarh, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 02.3.2020.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely in the present case. Further submission is that as per text of the F.I.R., the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Sunil Vishwakarma (non accused) way back on 11.7.2013 and this unfortunate incident of hanging took place on 29.2.2020 i.e. almost after seven years. During this period, the couple were blessed with two baby girls. Contention of the counsel is that the deceased was keenly interested in having the male progeny and for that reason she was reeling under immense depression. On account of sheer frustration, the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. The applicant does not have criminal antecedents.

¶8

Without making the husband as an accused, levelling the allegation of demand of Rs.1 lac as additional dowry the F.I.R. was got registered. The postmortem report reveals that there is singular ligature mark around the neck of the deceased, except this there is no other mark of injury over her person. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.03.2020, who is aged about 60+ years and taking into account the totality of circumstances he is entitled for bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record

¶11

regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Rajpati Vishwakarma, who is involved in aforementioned 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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

¶17

LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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 emergent condition-:

¶22

1. 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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

4. 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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 21.1.2021 M. Kumar

rajpati vishwakarma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

rajpati vishwakarma 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

Shyam Ji Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mitesh Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Vs State of U.P.

Diwakar @ Lavlesh Vs State of U.P.

Gulabshri @ Gulbari Vs State of U.P.