Allowed

Om Prakash Singh Alias Akali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2022BAIL/15139/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous bail application filed by a sole surviving accused in a dowry death case where the wife committed suicide. The Court noted conflicting post-mortem findings and lack of dowry demand evidence, permitting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted upon furnishing one personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to standard conditions.

Om Prakash Singh Alias Akali Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15139 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash Singh Alias Akali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

The second supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It is submitted that in this case applicant has been falsely implicated for demand of dowry and harassment to the deceased who was wedded to him four years prior to the incident having a son of two years who is now aged about 5 years. It is further submitted that applicant made no demand of dowry or harassment with the deceased but she committed suicide by hanging on account of over-sensitiveness. In postmortem cause of death was found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and no any injury was found on the person of the deceased. It is also submitted that at the time of post-mortem undue pressure was made by the informant side on the doctor to show the ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased to make the case stronger. The doctor conducting post-mortem namely Dr. V. K. Tiwari reported the matter to S.P., Mirzapur on the same day i.e. 03.09.2019 and mentioned in it that mob assembled from the side of the deceased were threatening him to kill and also compelled him to write about fracture in the post-mortem report whereas there was no any fracture of bone on the person of the deceased. In this way, the informant lodged the F.I.R. on false allegation only to make harassment of this applicant alongwith other members of his family. It is also submitted that during trial informant has been examined as PW-1 who has stated before the learned trial court that the applicant never made any demand of dowry or harassment with the deceased but she was happy in her marital house. There was a son with the wedlock of this applicant and the deceased who is aged about 5 years at present. His daughter never made complaint about demand of dowry or torture by the applicant or members of his family. This fact has also been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. Even in his cross-examination by the learned prosecutor nothing in

¶8

support of the prosecution version was found. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the allegation made in the F.I.R. There is no criminal history against the applicant and he is in jail since 02.09.2019, therefore, requested for bail. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record 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 Om Prakash Singh Alias Akali involved in Case Crime No.230 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chunar, District Mirzapur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.8.2022 Ashok Gupta

¶19

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2022.08.02 18:34:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash Singh Alias Akali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Singh Alias Akali 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

Shivam @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Indrawati Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Pandit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irsad Vs State of U.P and Another

Kaptan Sharma Vs State of U.P.