Allowed

Santosh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 May 2022BAIL/16655/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a bail application for Santosh, charged with dowry harassment and the murder of his daughter-in-law. Despite serious allegations, the court granted bail, relying on established precedents, subject to several conditions to prevent tampering and ensure trial participation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Santosh on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16655 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Santosh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 42 of 2022, for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Fatehpur vide order dated 08.04.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 23.03.2022 has been lodged against the applicant and three other family members of the applicant including the husband of the deceased by father of the deceased stating therein that the marriage of his daughter Guriya Devi was solemnized with co-accused Sahil @ Shiv Sahay son of the applicant on 26.11.2020, and he gave one Honda Dream Yoga motorcycle, gold ring, gold chain weighing 2 tolas, and Rs. 1 lac. cash in her marriage. After marriage of his daughter applicant and other co-accused persons was committed marpit and harassed his daughter and they demanded dowry. On 22.03.2022 at 04:30 P.M. applicant and other co-accused persons committed murder of his daughter by strangled her neck after committing marpit by kicks and fits.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report, inquest proceeding of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.03.2022 at 18:10 hours at the spot; postmortem of the person of the deceased was conducted on 24.03.2022 at 03:00 P.M. As per postmortem report, except ligature mark no external injury was found on the person of the deceased and trachea hyoid bone was found intact. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The statement of the first informant and

¶9

mother of the deceased were recorded during the course of investigation. The remaining investigation is still pending. The applicant was arrested on 25.03.2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased aged about 60 years. It is further submitted that marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with deceased on 26.11.2020. It is further submitted that general role of demand of dowry, harassment and made cruelty has been levelled against the applicant. It is further submitted that no specific role and involvement has been attributed to the applicant by the first informant as well as mother of the deceased. It is further submitted that except ligature mark no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that co-accused Sahil @ Shiv Sahay is in judicial custody.

¶11

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶14

(a) The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased;

¶15

(b) The marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with deceased on 26.11.2020;

¶16

¶17

(d) General allegations of demand of dowry and harassment has been assigned against the applicant;

¶18

(e) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant;

¶19

(f) The husband of the deceased is in judicial custody;

¶20

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶21

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let applicant, Santosh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(i) 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.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶28

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

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶30

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶31

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶32

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶33

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶34

Order Date :- 27.5.2022 Ishan

¶35

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.06.01 10:41:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh 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

Sipahi Lal Vs State of U.P.

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

Smt. Meena Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others