Allowed

Santosh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2021BAIL/5689/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an army personnel charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 120-B IPC for the death of his wife. The court noted he was in jail for the newlywed period and released him on a personal bond without sureties temporarily, with conditions to strengthen the bond once courts resume normal functioning. Strict adherence to trial dates was mandated.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal court functioning, with strict conditions regarding trial presence and surrender of duplicates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5689 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar,Piyush Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kuldeep Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant 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. 121 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Jahangirpur, District- Bulandshahar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 7.9.2019.

¶7

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is in regular Indian Army and was posted at Hyderabad, ESG, NSG Manesar and on the fateful day and time he was posted at Hyderabad as NSG Commando. It is submitted that the marriage of the deceased with the applicant was solemnized on 2.6.2019 and she died under unnatural circumstances on 5.9.2019.

¶8

I have gone through the text of the F.I.R. in which it has been mentioned that in the marriage a sum of Rs. 14 Lakhs were spent by the father of the deceased and there was alleged demand of Rs. 2 lakhs and four wheeler. On this count there was a regular harassment and cruel treatment upon the deceased by all the family members of the husband.

¶9

Sri Zaidi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that in fact this is her "Honeymoon period" and it is unthinkable that newly wedded wife would be dealt with cruelty for want of additional dowry. At the relevant time, applicant was in Army posted at Hyderabad and soon after the incident he reached the place of occurrence. The postmortem report of the deceased reveals that there is no external mark of injury over her body and there was Tattoo on her inner part of her leg with the name of 'Rahul' in the area of 12 cm x 3 cm and a recovery of broken SIM card from her stomach. It is further submitted that it seems the deceased was got married with the applicant perforce by her parents. In fact,

¶10

she has eloped with some other boy before her marriage and her father ignoring her feelings and sentiments, forcibly got her married with applicant. On the fateful day, family member of the husband has seen her talking with same boy and out of sheer guilt she consumed the SIM card. In the viscera report filed today by way of counter affidavit, Aluminium Phosphate poison has been found in her viscera with the broken SIM card. It is contended that it is the guilt feeling; she has taken this extreme step.

¶11

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Santosh , who is involved in Case Crime No. 121 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationJahangirpur, District- Bulandshahar, 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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 I.P.C.

¶16

(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,

¶17

THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶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

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

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

Order Date :- 21.1.2021/ Vikas

Santosh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh 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

Shyam Ji Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mitesh Vs State of U.P.

Diwakar @ Lavlesh Vs State of U.P.

Gulabshri @ Gulbari Vs State of U.P.

rajpati vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.