Allowed

Tarkeshwar Ojha and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2022BAIL/14799/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court granted bail to the aged father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The death was reported as hanging/suicide, though the State opposed the plea.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and non-tampering.

Tarkeshwar Ojha and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14799 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Tarkeshwar Ojha And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Krishna Kant Tiwari

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rudra Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra.

¶8

As per the prosecution version, the daughter of the informant was got married to Dheeeraj, son of the applicants, on 26.04.2021 whereafter she was harassed for demand of motorcycle in dowry and that at about 12 in the night on 01.01.2022, an information was received by the father of the deceased that his daughter has died. The postmortem report is on record, as per which, there is a a ligature mark on her neck and the death is due to asphyxia on account of hanging. Hyoid bone is reported to be intact.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants states that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law aged about 65 and 62 years respectively and that the death of the deceased was due to suicide. It is also stated that there is no specific allegation with regard to demand of dowry and the allegations in the FIR did not contain any specific details with regard to the demand itself. It is further stated that applicant no.1 is suffering from various diseases and can hardly move. A plea of separate living also is attempted to be raised although the same dose not prima facie inspire confidence. Submission is that the applicants have no prior criminal history and they are in jail since 06.02.2022.

¶10

The bail application is opposed by counsel for the informant who states that it is a case where family members have hanged the lady and the plea of suicide is not made out.

¶11

Except to making such submission, there is no allegation about the deceased having hung by the family members nor such

¶12

allegation has surfaced in statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. The postmortem report, prima facie, discloses it to be a case of hanging.

¶13

Considering the advanced age of the applicants and the fact that they have otherwise no previous criminal history and their case is distinguishable from that of the husband of the deceased who is already in jail, the applicants are held entitled to be enlarged on bail. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶14

Let the applicants Tarkeshwar Ojha and Aneeta Devi involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

i) The applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

ii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(v) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the

¶21

trial court on the dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶23

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.5.2022 Madhurima

¶25

Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.05.21 13:48:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tarkeshwar Ojha and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarkeshwar Ojha and Another 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

Chandan Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Amit Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munnalal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Yadav Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Karru @ Vinit Vs State of U.P.