Allowed

Kuddush and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2021BAIL/5717/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail to the applicant Kuddush and another in a maintenance case involving Sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC. Ordered release on personal bond with conditions surchargeable. Case pertains custodial detention of the applicants pending trial in a dowry death case.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Kuddush and Another released on bail by execution of personal bond and sureties subject to strict conditions including quick trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5717 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Kuddush And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh,Zuber Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prabhakar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prabhakar Dubey, 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 applicants who are involved in Case Crime No. 172 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationKhesarha, District- Siddharth Nagar are seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicants are in jail since 14.10.2020.

¶8

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are parent-in-laws of the deceased. The deceased was got married with the son of the applicants on 19.6.2018. No doubt, from the F.I.R. it is clear that the matrimonial life of deceased and Rafeeq was full of turmoil and there was deep rooted misunderstanding between husband and wife, however, the matter was sorted out with the help of elders and the girl came to her matrimonial house after jotting down a compromise dated 11.10.2020. On the very next day i.e. 12.10.2020 she has committed suicide by hanging herself. The applicants are, as mentioned above, parent-in-laws and there was no opportunity for them between 11.10.2020 to 12.10.2020 to harass and act cruelly with the deceased on account of scanty dowry. The husband is in jail.

¶9

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

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the inter se relationship with the deceased and the reason mentioned above, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a

¶11

case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicants- Kuddush and Sabrunnisha , who are involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on each of them 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 APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A I.P.C.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR 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 THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A I.P.C.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS 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 THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE

¶18

EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶19

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

¶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 applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶21

The applicants 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 :- 4.2.2021

¶26

Vikas

Kuddush and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuddush and Another 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

Kumari Alka Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kailash Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.

Vakeel Barar Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Husain @ Lala Vs State of U.P.