Allowed

Akhilesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022BAIL/12952/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to applicant Akhilesh in a dowry death suicide case involving sections 498A IPC and 302 IPC. Bail was conditioned upon bonds, sureties, and strict adherence to court attendance with terms linking default to procedural penalties under CrPC and IPC.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions including attendance requirements and penalties for default.

Akhilesh Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12952 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit has been filed by learned AGA, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Rakesh Mathur, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Akhilesh with a prayer to release him on bail in S.T. No. 165 of 2021, Case Crime No. 183 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 302/34 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chaubia, District- Etawah, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation of causing dowry death of his wife against the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of suicide and not dowry death. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 05.8.2020.

¶10

Learned AGA has informed that from the viscera report of the deceased, consumption of insecticide was found by the deceased prior to her death.

¶11

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. He has submitted that applicant has caused the death of the deceased.

¶12

Learned counsel for the parties has agreed that one prosecution has been examined before the court below till date. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 that :-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(ii) 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.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶18

(v) 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.9.2022 Ruchi Agrahari

¶23

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.09.17 14:38:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh 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

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Bajrangi Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Rai Vs State of U.P.

Sobbal @ Suhawal Agariya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Firoz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others