Allowed

Vijendra Kumar Gond @ Brijendra Kumar Gond v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022BAIL/10432/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding a dowry death case where the prosecution failed to produce the viscera report after multiple adjournments, the court allowed bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, citing jail overcrowding and constitutional mandates.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail via personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard bail conditions and direction to expedite trial.

Vijendra Kumar Gond @ Brijendra Kumar Gond Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10432 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vijendra Kumar Gond @ Brijendra Kumar Gond Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vijendra Kumar Gond @ Brijendra Kumar Gond, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304 IPC Police Station Jamalpur, District- Mirzapur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation of causing dowry death of his wife against the applicant in the First Information Report.The cause of death of the deceased was not ascertained and viscera report was not produced. Learned A.G.A. was granted time twice to produce the same but he has not been able to produce the same.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statements of the witnesses shows that there was frequent dispute between the couple. However no injury was found out by the doctor.The deceased and applicant entered into love marriage and resided separately from their parents. The applicant is in jail since 12.10.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6

¶10

times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.9.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶21

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.23 17:43:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijendra Kumar Gond @ Brijendra Kumar Gond v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Kumar Gond @ Brijendra Kumar Gond v. State of U.P.

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

Sudesh Kurmi @ Adesh Vs State of U.P.

Kosindra Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Irshad Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.