Allowed

Gopal Srivastava@ Chotu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021BAIL/35863/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35863 of 2020, the court allowed bail to the applicant facing charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for alleged dowry harassment and suicide. Considering the nature of the offence, lack of criminal record, and postmortem findings, the applicant was granted bail subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties later, subject to strict conditions of attendance and no adjournment.

Gopal Srivastava@ Chotu Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35863 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Gopal Srivastava@ Chotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Babu Lal Ram

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case No.1208 of 2019, u/s 498A, 306 I.P.C., P.S.-Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 24.12.2020.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the informant Smt. Kanti Devi has lodged the F.I.R. u/s 498A, 302 I.P.C. on 22.12.2019 against the applicant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased with the allegation that the marriage was solemnized about 11 years back and there was a demand of dowry in the shape of Rs.2 lacs. The deceased was tortured and harassed and ultimately was killed by the applicant.

¶8

It has been canvassed by learned counsel for the applicant that about 11 years back the marriage was solemnized and there was no complaint with regard to dowry harassment or its demand and the couple were happily residing. Unfortunately, during this period the couple were issueless and out of sheer frustration the deceased has committed suicide in railway accident as her dead body was found lying near the railway track and accordingly the case was transported from Section-302 to Section -306 I.P.C. I have perused the postmortem report of the deceased which reveals that rib nos.3 to 10 of both sides were fractured and she has sustained as many as seven injuries over her person typically indicating that she was run over by the train on the railway track. Taking into account the totality of circumstances, the possibility and basic root cause of committing suicide cannot be ruled out on this issue alone. The applicant is having no criminal antecedents.

¶9

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

¶10

place anything substantial while opposing the bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record 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 Gopal Srivastava @ Chotu, 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

¶17

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.

¶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 :- 6.1.2021 M. Kumar

Gopal Srivastava@ Chotu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Srivastava@ Chotu 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

Smt. Rekha Vs State of U.P.

Tasleem Vs State of U.P.

Chandrapal Vs State of U.P.

Tirthram Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P.