Allowed

Sagun Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021BAIL/38188/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the father-in-law of a deceased woman who committed suicide, the Court granted bail after observing the lack of evidence suggesting tampering or hesitation. Bail was subject to strict conditions regarding trial proceedings and prevention of harassment.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering, delaying trial, or absconding.

Sagun Singh Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38188 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sagun Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav,Yakub Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sagun Singh Rajpoot, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 62 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Badagaon, District Jhansi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Swati. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Vishal Rajpoot, the son of the applicant on 13.03.2020. The deceased died by committing suicide, which is also suggested from the post-mortem examination report, wherein the doctor has found single ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and has opined the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Even then the doctor has preserved the viscera and the report of the same is still awaited. It is next argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The demand as alleged in the first information report is of a motorcycle, which was of no use of the applicant. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and is in jail since 19.03.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and there are allegations against him.

¶9

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and single ligature mark has been found on the body of the deceased. The cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia

¶10

as a result of ante-mortem hanging, but even then the viscera has been preserved by the doctor and report of the same is still awaited.

¶11

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Sagun Singh Rajpoot, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) 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.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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

(V) 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 liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the

¶19

applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.12.2021 Sazia

¶23

(Samit Gopal, J)

Sagun Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagun Singh 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

Pramod Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mewa Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Mongia Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Nazim Vs State of U.P.

Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P.