Allowed

Rampreet Sahni v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2021BAIL/40834/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, the court granted bail to the applicant, the father-in-law of the deceased, subject to strict conditions and an undertaking to ensure trial conduct. Due to extraordinary circumstances, bail was granted on a personal bond without immediate sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of courts is restored, subject to strict conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40834 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rampreet Sahni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.202 of 2020, under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Shohratgarh, DistrictSiddharth Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. The next submission is that for the incident of 03.08.2020, FIR was got registered by father of the deceased against Govind-husband, Jitendra-devar and Rampreet-applicant with the allegation that husband got married with the deceased on 28.04.2015. At the time of marriage, informant was having only six daughters and it is allegedly agreed between the parties that after the marriage, the informant would part with his landed property in favour of his son-in-law. But later on, the informant has refused to do so keeping in view the changed circumstances and on this score, all the named accused used to maltreat and harass their daughter-in-law. The deceased died on account of hanging and she was carrying fetus of about eight months. The husband is already behind the bars and could be said to be best beneficiary of the alleged dowry demand in the shape of agricultural land. Keeping in view the inter se relationship between the applicant and the deceased and the article demanded, the applicant is liable to be released on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.08.2020.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Rampreet Sahni , who is involved in case crime no.202 of 2020, under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Shohratgarh, DistrictSiddharth Nagar, 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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 :- 12.1.2021

¶26

Sumit S

Rampreet Sahni v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampreet Sahni 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 Sarvati Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Somvati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Dilip @ Munne Vs State of U.P.

Sulley Vs State of U.P.

Kishan @Jaynarayan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Kumar @ Pushpendra Singh Vs State of U.P.