Allowed

Bablu S/O Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC26 May 2022/5353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to the father-in-law charged in a dowry death case where allegations against him were vague and the son was the primary accused. Bail conditioned on attendance and not seeking adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail conditioned on furnishing personal bond, two sureties, surrendering passport if any, not contesting evidence indirectly, and strict attendance at court dates.

Bablu S/O Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5353 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bablu S/O Babu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh 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

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR No.139 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghungter, District Barabanki.

¶7

3. The accused-applicant is father-in-law of the deceased-Savita. Marriage between the son of the accused-applicant and the deceased was performed 5 years before the date of the incident. It is alleged that after sometime, the accusedapplicant and his parents started demanding dowry and torturing, harassing the deceased and subjecting her to cruelty for dowry demand. Cruelty to the deceased by the accused-applicant continued for last 2 years. Husband of the deceased would torture and harass her and subject her to extreme cruelty. It is said that on the date of incident i.e. 05.10.2021, the accused after killing the deceased hanged her.

¶8

4. Post mortem report would suggest following ante mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased:-

¶9

"An oblique ligature mark 36 x 2 cm present on all around the neck above thyroid cartilage of neck passing oblique upward and backward along with line of mandible and interrupted by 2.5 cm on lateral aspect of neck on left side the ligature mark situated 2 cm left ear and 5 cm left ear."

¶10

5. Cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Though Viscera is preserved but no F.S.L. report has been placed on record to ascertain whether cause of death was due to poisoning or not.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that allegations of dowry demand are very common and general in nature. There is nothing to show that what item(s) or any money was demanded by the accused-applicant. There is a 5 years old child, out of wedlock between the son of the accused-applicant and the deceased. He further submits that allegation of subjecting the deceased to cruelty is against the son of the accused-applicant and not against the accused-applicant.

¶12

The accused-applicant has been in jail since 13.10.2021. Since there is no allegation of subjecting the deceased to cruelty by the accused-applicant for any dowry demand, it would be appropriate to enlarge him on bail.

¶13

7. On the other hand, Mr.Nikhil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that death of the wife of the son of the accused-applicant has taken place within 7 years of marriage. There is allegation of dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty by her husband. However, he is not in a position to show anything on record of the bail application to suggest that the accused-applicant has ever subjected the deceased to cruelty or demanded any dowry item from the parents of the deceased.

¶14

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶15

9. Let applicant Bablu S/O Babu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.5.2022/prateek

¶21

Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.05.26 18:15:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bablu S/O Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu S/O Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ajay Singh Third Bail Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Swarnkar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Khelawan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra Prajapati @ Bhupesh Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Zakir Ali Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Muneem Vs State of U.P.