Allowed

Adesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2022BAIL/14265/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon’ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. granted bail to the applicant in a trial stage case involving dowry death. The court noted the applicant was summoned via Section 319 Cr.P.C. while Section 304-B IPC co-accused were already on bail and the applicant had no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering and re-offending.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14265 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Adesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Sisodia

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Adesh for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 307 of 2016, under Section 304-BIPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Didoli, District Amroha, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case only on account of his relation with the husband of the deceased as the husband of the deceased was brother of the applicant.

¶9

It is further submitted that general allegations of demand of a motor cycle and Rs. 2,00,000/- and committing cruelty in lieu thereof have been levelled in the first information report as well as in the statements of the prosecution witnesses against all accused persons named in the FIR and no specific role of any kind has been assigned to the instant applicant, who is the 'dewar' of the deceased and by any stretch of imagination he could not be the beneficiary of dowry which was being demanded.

¶10

It is further submitted that death of the deceased had occurred due to asphyxia on account of ante-mortem hanging and only husband of the deceased by virtue of his relation is more responsible and accountable for the incident, as the applicant who was living separately in the same house is not obliged to explain as to what had actually happened at the relevant time.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 17.11.2021. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. The applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶12

It is further submitted that complicity of the applicant was not found in the crime by the Investigating Officer and he was not charge sheeted and it was only after an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution, the Subordinate Court had summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 304 B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶13

It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Vandana and Virendra have been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 8.4.2022 and 15.2.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.s 12896 of 2022 and 4475 of 2017, respectively.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that he has committed heinous offence but could not dispute that identically placed co-accused persons have been granted bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that general allegations of demand of dowry and committing cruelty in lieu thereof have been levelled in the FIR against all accused persons. The applicant was not charge sheeted and it was on the basis of order passed on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the applicant has been summoned to face trial. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Vandana and Virendra have been granted bail. The applicant is in jail in this case since 17.11.2021 without any criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Adesh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 25.4.2022 Muk

¶25

Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.04.26 18:09:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Adesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Beena Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Yadav @ Chunne Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Riyazuddin Vs State of U.P.

Rajat Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shubham Vs State of U.P.