Allowed

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2022BAIL/139/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the accused, Dharmendra Kumar, charged with dowry death under IPC Sections 498-A and 304-B. Relying on recent Supreme Court judgments, the court held that conditions for bail were made out. Broad bail conditions were laid down, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties; strict conditions imposed regarding witness tampering and courtroom presence; trial to be concluded within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 139 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is allegation of causing dowry death of his wife against the applicant in the FIR.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased committed suicide on account of mis-adjustment in her matrimonial home. Only one prosecution witness has been examined. The statement of second prosecution witness is being recorded. The applicant is in jail since 11.11.2018 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶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 and 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 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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Dharmendra Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 158 of 2018, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Chiraiyakot, District- Mau, 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.

¶11

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

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶13

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

(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.

¶15

(iv) 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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.9.2022 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.02 16:59:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar 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

Matar Alias Seraj Khan Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and 3 Others

Kinnu @ Kiranpal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raees Dhore @ Pankaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others