Allowed

Jay Prakash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2021BAIL/38596/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court No. 64 granted bail to Jay Prakash in a marriage-related case involving dowry demands and death of sister-in-law. Bail allowed on personal bond without sureties initially, subject to strict conditions for future sureties and trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond without sureties initially; to furnish sureties within one month after normal court functioning restored.

Jay Prakash Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38596 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jay Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.171 of 2020, under Section 498A, 304B, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act Police Station-Bilaspur, DistrictRampur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is brother-in-law(jeth) of the deceased. It is next contended that the present FIR was got registered by one Bharat Singh, informant under the aforesaid sections of IPC against Mool Chand(husband), Hotelal(father-in-law), Smt. Pravesh(sister-in-law) including the applicant with general allegation of demand of additional dowry in the shape and form of bullet motorcycle and Rs.five lacs after three years and six months of the marriage. The deceased died on account of strangulation. The next contention is that the applicant is separate unit and if at all, he is interested in the motorcycle or the cash, he would have demanded from his own wife or his inlaws instead of harassing his sister-in-law. The husband is in jail. In the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant, it is clear that the demand of alleged article is from the last three months only and prior to that, there was no demand of any article. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.08.2020.

¶9

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case

¶11

for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant, Jay Prakash , who is involved in case crime no.171 of 2020, under Section 498A, 304B, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act Police Station-Bilaspur, DistrictRampur, 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 LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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-:

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.2.2021 Sumit S

Jay Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash 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

Maitun Nisha Vs State of U.P.

Radha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Parmanand Mourya Vs State of U.P.

Sukhlal Vs State of U.P.

Raja Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Bhuri Devi Vs State of U.P.