Allowed

Tirthram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021BAIL/34944/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge permissible granting bail to accused Tirthram in a dowry-related matrimonial case involving IPC 498-A and 304-B. Court noted co-accused already on bail and issued order with strict conditions for trial attendance, relief waived pending normal court functioning.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond without sureties till normal court functioning restored; strict conditions on trial attendance and furnishing sureties within one month.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34944 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Tirthram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Nath Singh,Virendra Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the memo of prayer during the course of the day by correcting Case Crime No. 077 of 2020 in place of Case Crime No.1033 of 2020.

¶7

Heard Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 077 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationSikarara, District- Jaunpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 16.5.2020.

¶9

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. was got registered by one Munna Lal on 15.5.2020 against father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased. It is interesting to mention that husband has not been arrayed as an accused who could be the best suited beneficiary of the additional dowry. A general role has been attributed in the F.I.R. that father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to harass the deceased for the additional dowry in a shape of motorcycle. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that a beneficiary of the additional dowry in the shape of motorcycle could be a husband alone who is not arrayed as an accused. It is further submitted that the deceased died on account of burn injuries and it was the fatherin-law who taken her to the hospital. It is submitted that coaccused Rupesh, brother-in-law of the deceased, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36118 of 2020. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

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

¶11

dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the role attributed to the applicant and the fact that co-accused Rupesh has been enlarged on bail, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Tirthram , who is involved in Case Crime No. 077 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Sikarara, District- Jaunpur, 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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 I.P.C.

¶16

(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 I.P.C.

¶17

(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

¶18

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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶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

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

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Vikas

Tirthram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirthram 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

Smt. Rekha Vs State of U.P.

Tasleem Vs State of U.P.

Chandrapal Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Srivastava@ Chotu Vs State of U.P.