Allowed

Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022/1141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application arising from a dowry deaths case involving anti-mortem burn injuries, the High Court weighed the applicant's injury and lack of antecedents against the allegations of cruelty, ultimately granting bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding attendance and non-misuse of liberty.

Anil Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1141 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Tiwari,M.V.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Anil Kumar Mishra S/o Ram Sumiran Mishra seeking bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 292 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Amethi, District Amethi.

¶7

The accused-applicant is husband of the deceased Priti Mishra. Marriage had taken place five years before the date of incident. It is alleged that the accused-applicant and his sisterin-law (Bhabhi) subjected the deceased to cruelty for additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and on 30th July, 2021 the complainant, father of the deceased got information that the deceased was in a serious condition. The deceased was taken to the hospital by the accused-applicant, however, she died during the course of her treatment. Cause of death is anti mortem burn injuries.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the statement given by elder brother of the accused-applicant is under pressure of the Police and cannot be placed reliance. He also submits that Bhabhi of the accused-applicant had given statement against the accused-applicant. Her name was brought in the chargesheet. Accused-applicant has been in jail since 1st of August 2021. There is no criminal antecedent of the accusedapplicant.

¶9

On the other hand, Shri Diwakar Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail application, but has not disputed the fact that the deceased was taken to hospital by the accused-applicant and he had also suffered some injuries while trying to extinguish the fire.

¶10

Considering these facts and circumstances of the case as also taking note of the fact that the accused-applicant has also suffered injuries in the incident, he is in jail since 1st of August 2021, this court deems it appropriate to enlarge the accused-

¶11

applicant on bail. The application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Anil Kumar Mishra S/o Ram Sumiran Mishra be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(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. 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.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, 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.

¶17

( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. )

¶18

Order Date :- 13.12.2022 A.Nigam

¶19

Digitally signed by ANUJ NIGAM Date: 2022.12.16 11:19:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

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

Vyas Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Saroj Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Avdheshwar Dayal Khare Vs State of U.P.through C.B.I. A.C.B. Lucknow.

Faiz Khan @ Ziaul Vs State of U.P.

Bramha Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Central Bureau of Investigation /Anti Co.

Dhaniram Alias Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Depart . of Home and Others