Allowed

Bale Prasad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2021BAIL/6891/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, Bale Prasad, in a case involving 498-A, 304-B IPC, noting his four-year confinement, lack of criminal history, and claim of false implication, though without expressing a final opinion on trial merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering and for sincere cooperation in trial.

Bale Prasad Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6891 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Bale Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais,Amarendra Rai,Amit Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as also perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Bale Prasad with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 38 of 2017, under Sections - 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Ekauna, District - Deoria , during pendency of trial.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶9

(i) the applicant is accused of Sections - 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act;

¶10

(ii) against FIR lodged on 21.09.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 05.10.2017 that is for more than four years;

¶11

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶12

(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶13

(v) though chargesheet has already been submitted, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶14

(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. There was no marriage performed between the parties. There was neither cruelty practised on the deceased nor any dowry had been demanded. The occurrence was purely an accidental as has always been claimed by the applicant. In any case, at the trial the crucial eye-witness namely Khaderu/first informant and his son Ram Prasad have turned hostile inasmuch as they have completely

¶15

denied the allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty practised on the deceased. Two other witness namely Gayatri Devi (mother of the deceased) and Rajendra have been discharged at the trial. In such circumstances, pending the final outcome of the trial and without making any observation as to the adverse effect on the outcome of the trial, at present, the applicant is found entitled to bail, subject to his cooperating in the trial such that the trial may be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today;

¶16

(vii) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶17

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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, with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.11.2021 Abhilash

Bale Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bale Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Dev Vs State of U.P.and Anr.

Bali Ur-Rahman and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Chandra Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Muneeb Miya Vs State of U.P.

Dilshad Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P.