Allowed

Ansar Ahmad S/O Kallu Alias Abdul Majeed v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2022/4426/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 439 CrPC regarding FIRs for Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act concerning the death of the applicant's wife within six months of marriage, the Single Bench held it to be a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ansar Ahmad to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance.

Ansar Ahmad S/O Kallu Alias Abdul Majeed Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4426 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad S/O Kallu Alias Abdul Majeed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Rao,Abdul Shadab Khan

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.

¶7

By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0238 of 2020, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act lodged at Police Station Machharehta, District Sitapur.

¶8

The accused-applicant is husband of Gulfsa, who died within six months of marriage; her body was buried in presence of complainant and parents of the deceased; after 14 days of death of wife of the accused-applicant, the FIR came to be registered by the mother of the deceased, alleging therein that though they were present at the time when the deceased was cremated, but later on, it came to knowledge that the accused-applicant and co-accused had killed the deceased as they used to torture and subject the deceased to cruelty for additional dowry demand; the dead body was exhumed and subjected to postmortem examination, but no finding could be recorded regarding cause of death as the body got decomposed completely.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the deceased died because of natural causes; the FIR, which came to be lodged after 14 days by the mother, who was present at the time of cremation of the deceased, is nothing but an afterthought attempt to falsely implicate the accused-applicant and co-accused. It is further submitted that two co-accused, namely, Rukhsar and Pappi alias Noorjahan, having similar role, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders contained in Annexures 7 and 8 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The accused-applicant has been languishing in jail since 31.05.2021.

¶10

Considering all the above facts & circumstances of the case

¶11

and without commenting upon merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶12

Let applicant- Ansar Ahmad , accused of above-mentioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) the applicant(s) 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(s) 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(s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) 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; and

¶16

(iv) the applicant(s) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

[D.K. SINGH, J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 3.12.2022 MVS/-

¶19

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.12.05 19:07:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ansar Ahmad S/O Kallu Alias Abdul Majeed v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansar Ahmad S/O Kallu Alias Abdul Majeed 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Pratap Singh S/O Late Dan Pal Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mukesh Kumar Urav S/O Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.and Others

Satish Kumar S/O Sri Chandra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Anuj Kumar Alias Mantu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. and 3 Others

Nand Kumar Alias Bablu Third Bail Application Vs State of U.P.

Karamjeet Vs State of U.P. and Others