Allowed

Kashish v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2021BAIL/6233/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding Scheme No. 138 of 2020 involving dowry-related offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, the court granted bail to the applicant after noting that the FIR did not specify the dowry amount. Conditions were imposed to ensure appearance in trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail with a personal bond without sureties initially, subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances and trial conduct, with sureties to be furnished later.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6233 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Kashish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kapoor Pandey,Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Madhava Nand 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.138 of 2020, under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Rohta, District-Meerut is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission advanced by Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. A usual allegation were fastened by the informant, against applicant and his entire family levelling a general and omnibus role regarding dowry related harassment and torture. An unusual feature of the FIR is that the alleged demand by way of additional dowry is for UNSPECIFIED amount or the articles. This tussle between the husband and wife was for long. On 25.06.2020, a oral settlement was arrived, and as such the lady accompanied her husband. Unfortunately, she has consumed poisonous substance and self-immolated herself. Viscera report is awaited.

¶8

Neither in the FIR nor in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant, there was any allegation of either the amount or articles additionally demanded. The deceased died on account of consuming some poisonous substance. The next contention is that no doubt, the deceased died under the mysterious circumstance at the residence of the applicant. Every unnatural death would not come within the realm of Section 304-B IPC. An essential pre-requisite of Section 304 IPC is missing then the dowry related harassment and the prosecution cannot be attracted. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.07.2020.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that the informant is too young lad of 20 years and by default, he has unable to specify the amount in the

¶10

FIR or his 161 statement.

¶11

I have perused the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of informant Ravi. Even then, there was no allegation of amount demanded. Under the circumstances, this argument made by learned counsel for the applicant is not sustainable.

¶12

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 for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant, Kashish , 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.

¶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 IPC.

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶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 :- 2.7.2021 Sumit S

Kashish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashish 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

Vicky Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Shankar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Tahseel Khan @ Tahseen Khan Vs State of U.P.

Salman Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ravishankar Thakur @ Prashant Kumar @ Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Danveer Vs State of U.P.