Dismissed

Sahil Bharti @ Raj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2021BAIL/34956/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court noted the applicant's absence after promising to appear. Rejecting the application, the court held that no sufficient ground existed to exercise its power, citing the heinous nature of the charges regarding the suicide of a married woman.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant denied enlargement during the trial.

Sahil Bharti @ Raj Vs State of U.P. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34956 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sahil Bharti @ Raj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Case called out in the revised call.

¶6

Yesterday, learned counsel for the applicant after arguing the case, sought time to file supplementary affidavit with regard to the exact place of residence of the deceased at the relevant point of time.

¶7

Today, when the case is called out, despite of the solemn promise and understanding given by the learned counsel for the applicant that he will appear and assist the Court, he is not present even in the revised call. This is hight of impertinence towards the Court which has establish new standard of non-professionalism on his part.

¶8

Under the circumstance, I am compelled to hear the matter and decide with the aid of learned AGA.

¶9

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 88 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Knowledge Park, District Gautam Budh Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶10

The FIR was got registered by one Sunil Kumar against the sole named accused person with the allegation that his daughter Kajal was got married with one Vinod Kumar on 05.07.2018. On 17.02.2020 one Sahil Bharti @ Raj. Present applicant has enticed away her daughter from her marital house along with her ornaments and cash. The informant's counter part Mahavir Singh has initiated the proceeding as NCR No. 0027 of 2020 under Section 498 IPC against the present applicant Sahil Bharti @ Raj. It has been alleged, in the FIR that applicant Sahil Bharti has sexually exploited and assaulted the married woman Kajal and she has informed her parent repeatedly and lastly out of sheer disgust, she has committed suicide. There is specific ligature mark around her neck and when she took her last breath her uterus was gravid and she was pregnant. She has died at the residence of the applicant. It seems that the deceased was sexually exploited and make her pregnant. All these action has been taken by him after full knowledge that she has married woman of Vinod Kumar and now after making her pregnant, the applicant has betrayed the lady, under

¶11

the circumstances she has left with no other option but to take her own life.

¶12

In view of the above, I do not find any good reason to exercise my power under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in farour of the applicant, accordingly, the present bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected .

¶13

Order Date :- 29.1.2021

¶14

Abhishek Sri.

Sahil Bharti @ Raj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil Bharti @ Raj 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.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

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

Ikrar and Another Vs State of U.P.