Allowed

Kuldeep Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2022/10480/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning charges of setting a woman on fire under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court, noting contradictions in the prosecution version and the applicant's custody of a minor child, granted bail subject to conditions including attending proceedings and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to five conditions regarding court attendance, conduct, and evidence tampering.

Kuldeep Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10480 of 2021 Applicant :- Kuldeep Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Kumar,Abhay Kumar Pathak,Avinash Pandey,Pushpendra Saini Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Abhay Kumar Pathak, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Hari Shanker Bajpai, the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶4

By means of this application, the applicant who is in Jail since 17.03.2021 in relation to Crime No. 0017 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Ashiyana, District- Lucknow is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶5

As per the allegation made in the FIR, the informant's daughter Sonam Pandey had got married to the applicant about one and a half year prior to lodging of the FIR. It is alleged that the applicant used to demand a gold chain and on account of non fulfillment of the said demand, on 29.12.2020 at about 02:00 A.M. the applicant put the informant's daughter on fire. Some neighbours gave information of the incident to the informant through phone and when the informant reached at the applicant's home at about 2:30 A.M., the applicant and her another son-in-law namely Sharad Thakur ran away after seeing her. The condition of Sonam Pandey was very serious and she was admitted to the Civil Hospital.

¶6

The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, after lodging of FIR the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As per medical treatment report issued by Dr. Shyam Prasad of the Hospital, the date of

¶7

admission of the patient was 30.12.2020 at about 04:48 A.M. and the date of her discharge was 04.01.2021 and the diagnosis was superficial 24% burn injuries.

¶8

It is pertinent to mention here that the Investigating Officer has recorded in the Case Diary that he had gone to Civil Hospital, Luckow, where the injured Sonam Pandey was being treated and that he recorded the victim's statement in the Hospital. However, the medical treatment report states that Sonam Pandey had been discharged from the Hospital on 04.01.2021. Thus, there is a material contradiction in the prosecution version, which makes it prima-facie unbelievable.

¶9

The learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has a daughter aged amount 7 months and nobody is there to look after his daughter, as her wife Sonam Pandey has not returned to her matrimonial home since after the incident and his minor daughter is presently in the care and custody of the applicant's sister.

¶10

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 17.03.2021 and there is no apprehension that if the facility of bail is granted to the applicant, he may flee from the process of law or that he will not appear before the Court below. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶12

The learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not been able to dispute the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing

¶14

the record and also considering the nature of the allegations, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Kuldeep Pandey be released on bail in aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :- (1) That the applicant shall attend the proceedings of the case in accordance with the conditions of the bonds to be executed by him.

¶16

(2) That the applicant shall not commit any offence.

¶17

(3) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(4) The applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶19

(5) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charges; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.

¶21

The application stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 2.6.2022/Jyoti/-

¶23

Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJWANI Date: 2022.06.03 15:52:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kuldeep Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Pandey 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashwani and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Smt. Poonam Thru. Her Husband Avdesh Vs Rati Ram and 2 Others

Akeel Alias Akeel Khan and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Ritik Yadav Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and 3 Others