Allowed

Shri Prakash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2022/10791/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a dowry death case involving culpable homicide. The applicant admitted to only holding the deceased, not causing fatal injuries, and urged parity. The Court emphasized constitutional rights and lack of evidence implicating the applicant in the fatal act.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions including appearances and cooperation in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10791 of 2021 Applicant :- Shri Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Srikant Jaiswal,Adarsh Srivastava,Amit Chaudhary

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nikhil Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 84/2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A, 304/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the allegation of the First Information Report on 19.04.2021 the applicant along with his sons Mukesh Verma and Vijay Bahadur assaulted Vinay Kumar, brother of daughter-in-law (Shrimati), resulting in his death. It was further alleged that the incident took place when Shrimati wife of Mukesh Verma (son) of the applicant informed her brother Vinay Kumar (deceased) about being ill-treated by the accused person for want of dowry. On being informed deceased Vinay Kumar along with his friends Satrohan and Ramsaran Verma reached the house of the accused, where a quarrel between the parties took place, during which the deceased received injuries and he was rushed to the hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to death on the way to the hospital.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the post-mortem report, following ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased:

¶9

"i) Stitch 0.5 cm sternum (skindeep); ii) Stitch 3 cm left side arm (skindeep); iii) Stitch 1cm left arm (skindeep); iv) Stitch 12 cm right side abdomen; v) Stitch 1.5 cm right side lateral ahd; vi) Stitch 0.5 cm left side back lower; vii) Stitch 0.5 cm left side back lower skindeep."

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that during course of the investigation statement of witnesses were recorded and a perusal of the same bring out that the incident took place at the residence of the applicant, where the deceased, allegedly along with his friends Satrohan and Ramsaran Verma

¶11

@ Babloo reached the house of the accused, where a quarrel between the parties took place, in which the co-accused Vijay Bahadur and the applicant caught hold of Vinay Kumar (deceased) and the other co-accused Mukesh Verma in a fit of rage, stabbed the deceased by knife.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the majeed statement of Vinod Kumar, the brother of the deceased, was recorded and a perusal of the same it would bring out that the delay in the deceased getting proper medical treatment was the reason for the death of the deceased, therefore, it comes out that had the deceased received appropriate medical care at the right time, perhaps he would not have succumbed to his injuries.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that from a perusal of F.I.R. and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it comes out that the injuries on account of which the deceased succumbed, were not caused by the applicant, the incident occurred as a result of sudden quarrel between the parties and the injuries, which caused the death of the deceased were not premeditated. He further submits that even the prosecution has not come up with a story of a planned assault. The deceased died on account of injuries inflicted in a fit of rage, that too, not by the applicant. The applicant is innocent, he did not assault the deceased. He has been falsely implicated by the complainant out of ill will.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant was not assigned the role of stabbing the deceased by knife. He was only given the role of catching hold of deceased, which was not supported by any independent witness except the friend of the informant and the medical report also does not support the prosecution against the applicant.

¶15

It has been further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused Vijay Bahadur, who was assigned the same role of catching hold of the deceased was already granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2021 passed in Bail No. 14494 of 2021, and the case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to get the benefit of parity and be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of

¶17

law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 22.04.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶19

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering that the applicant was not assigned the role of stabbing the deceased by knife. He was only given the role of catching hold of deceased, which was not supported by any independent witness except the friend of the informant and the medical report also does not support the prosecution against the applicant and considering the ground of parity and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant Shri Prakash involved in Case Crime No. 84/2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A, 304/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶22

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(6) The applicant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶28

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶29

(8) 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.

¶30

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶32

Order Date :- 16.2.2022 Arvind

¶33

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.02.17 17:19:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shri Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prakash 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jagat Pal Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dhirendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.