Allowed

Sant Ram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2021BAIL/42832/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42832 of 2020, the High Court considered an application by Sant Ram for enlargement on bail in a murder case involving dowry harassment. The court allowed bail, noting the husband was not an accused and a brother-in-law was already on bail, while imposing strict conditions to ensure the applicant's presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Release of Sant Ram on personal bond and two sureties (to be furnished later) with strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial proceedings.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42832 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sant Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nigamendra Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant through virtual mode 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.181 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Mansoorpur, DistrictMuzaffar Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The next submission is that prompt FIR was got registered by one Ramfal Singh on 14.07.2020 under the aforesaid sections of IPC against three accused persons including the applicant. After reading the FIR, learned counsel for the applicant advanced his argument which are formulated hereinbelow :-

¶8

(i) Husband is not arrayed as an accused;

¶9

(ii) There is no specified amount of alleged dowry demand. General allegation has been made that for a scanty dowry, she was subject matter of harassment but the FIR as well as 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant is completely silent as to what is the amount or articles were demanded as an additional dowry ;

¶10

(iii) This unfortunate incident took place after four and half years of the marriage. General and omnibus role has been levelled against father-in-law(present applicant), Lokesh(brother-in-law) and Jayanti(jethani) with the specific averments that husband Rajiv@Raju used to keep her with love and affection. Later on, in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant, a canon of the allegation was also moved against Rajiv@Raju, the husband, though not arrayed as an accused ;

¶11

(iv) Lokesh was admitted on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.03.2021 in Criminal Misc Bail Application

¶12

No.47801 of 2020, copy of which has been produced for perusal. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.08.2020.

¶13

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that this is an eye witness account. Ashutosh, brother of the deceased has seen the incident but he has unable to give reply to any of the specific queries posed above. The deceased died on account of Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. All the family members are said to have been involved in the present case. Thus, opposed the bail application.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Keeping in view that omnibus role has been attributed to all the accused persons, subtracting the name of the husband, who could be the best beneficiary of the additional dowry and moreover, Lokesh(brother-in-law) has already been granted bail by this Court, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶15

Let the applicant, Sant Ram , who is involved in the aforesaid case 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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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

¶20

BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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-:

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

Order Date :- 5.7.2021

¶30

Sumit S

Sant Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Ram 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

Danveer Vs State of U.P.

Kashish Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumari Vs State of Up

Pramod Yadav @ Rajnish Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra@ Patariya Vs State of U.P.