Allowed

Amit Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022/13451/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant in a second bail application regarding a dowry death case. Despite a prior rejection, the court found it a fit case for bail due to trial delays and the applicant's readiness to cooperate, imposing strict conditions to prevent abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

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

Amit Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13451 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashid Ali,Mohammad Kashif Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This is the 2nd bail application. The first bail applications was rejected by this Court on merit vide order dated 27.01.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7595 of 2020.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 0319 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Bakshi Ka Talab, District - Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He is in jail since 27.07.2019. He further submitted that till today, only two witnesses have been examined. He further submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 27.01.2022 with a direction to conclude the trial within one year but there is no possibility of conclusion of trial as till today only two witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the deceased and the applicant entered into marriage on their own choice against the wishes of their parents as the family members of the deceased were not supporting her morally, therefore, she was depressed. He also submitted that in the deposition of P.W.-1, it is admitted that prior to the date of incident, the deceased came to

¶9

her house along with the applicant and thereafter the applicant went back and on the next day, the deceased also went out and thereafter her body was found dead, therefore, it cannot be presumed that she was killed by the applicant and the applicant is ready to cooperate in trial, therefore, he is entitled for bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application was rejected on merit, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail but he does not dispute this fact that father of the deceased has accepted that she entered into marriage on her choice against the wishes of her family members and on the prior to the date of incident, she came along with her husband thereafter her husband went back on the next day and thereafter she went out and thereafter he received information.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as leaned AGA and going through the contents of bail application and as well as instructions placed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ POCSO Act dated 02.12.2022 in which it is admitted that only two witnesses have been examined and the applicant is in jail since 27.07.2019, in such circumstances, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Amit Kumar Prajapati , involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 sufÏcient 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.12.2022 KR

¶19

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.12.14 18:25:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs Prashant Trivedi , Prin. Secy. Apper Chief Secy. Ayush ANUBHAGH-1, Lko.

Mahendra Kumar Vs Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, Joint Director of Secondary Education, Ayodhya and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs Sri Narendra Bhooshan, Prin. Secy. PWD Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Satya Narayan Vs Dr. Vijayendra Vice Chancellor, Acharya Narendra Deva Univ. of Agri. and Teco. Ayodhya and Another

Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla Vs Amit Mohan Prasad Addl.Chief Prin.Secy.Medical/Health Luckno

Raj Kumar Mishra Vs Mani Ram Singh Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Gonda and Anr.