Allowed

Riyaj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2022/12162/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to an applicant accused under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 377 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found it was a fit case due to non-availability of independent witnesses and lack of corroborative evidence for the otherwise fabricated dowry demand story. Bail was granted subject to personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail on personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to standard conditions regarding evidence tampering and court attendance.

Riyaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12162 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Riyaj Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Veer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today by learned AGA, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.42 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 377 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. - Mahila Thana, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

As per version of the first information report, the marriage of the present applicant was solemnized on 25.07.2020 with the victim and thereafter family members of the applicant started demanding dowry of rupees two lacs and Apache Motorcycle and in case of not providing same, they started harassing and beating the complainant and kicked her out from the house.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that admittedly the present applicant is the husband and there seems to be certain dispute in between husband and wife and it has been given a colour of serious offence. He added that though there is allegation that there were fractures but there is no such injury report in support thereof and further submitted that the story is concocted. He also added that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent. The applicant is law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 29.08.2022. He next added that there is no independent witness so as to support the version of the first information report. He next added that the applicant is still ready to live with the complainant. He further added that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant, the complainant has received injuries, and as such the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that there is certain dispute in between the husband and the wife; there is no public witness of the aforesaid offence; further the demand of dowry seems to be concocted story as there is no corroborative evidence in support thereof; further the applicant is languishing in jail 29.08.2022 and he is still ready to live with the complainant. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Riyaj Ahmad involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) 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. He 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

(3) 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.; and

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 24.11.2022 KR

¶20

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.11.25 10:21:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Riyaj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyaj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

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

Deepu Yadav @ Chhote Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Masook Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy. Home Lucknow

Kallu @Shamshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home

Naushad Sheikh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shivam Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.