Allowed

Shivam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 May 2022BAIL/16900/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a bail application in a dowry death case. The court relied on the postmortem report showing hanging, noted the improbability of single-sided allegation, and granted bail subject to strict undertakings regarding court attendance and non-misuse of liberty. The trial court must verify sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16900 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shivam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sadhna Upadhyaya,Samriddhi Upadhyaya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Piyush Dubey for the informant and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.45 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Achhnera, District Agra.

¶7

As per the prosecution version the informant had married his two daughters to two real brothers namely Shivam and Sundaram. It is alleged that the family members including the applicant used to demand a car as dowry and since such demand was not met she was repeatedly harassed. It is further stated that on 17.2.2021 the informant was apprised at about 11 O'clock in the night that his daughter has committed suicide by hanging, whereas the informant states that she has been done to death by the in-laws. The accused, who happens to be the husband, has been arrested and is in jail since 19.2.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the father-in-law and mother-in-law i.e. Mahesh and Sunita have already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.20019 of 2021 and 20061 of 2021, respectively. It is further urged that the postmortem report clearly shows that hyoid bone was intact and plea of suicide is prima facie substantiated by the ligature mark and as such the death is due to anti-mortem injuries. It is stated that prior to the incident no complaint of dowry was ever made and the information about the death of the deceased has also been given by the applicant's family members. Learned counsel further states that there is a three years old child borne out of the wedlock, who is with the applicant's family and the plea of dowry has not been supported by the other sister married in the same family nor has herself made any such allegation. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 19.2.2021.

¶9

Sri Piyush Dubey appearing for the informant states that death of deceased is unnatural and a period of 07 years is not expired, as such presumption of section 113(b) of the Indian Evidence Act would stare against the applicant.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that prima facie the postmortem report reveals that the cause of death was hanging and the hyoid bone etc. is clearly intact. It has also come in the statement of witnesses that deceased had locked herself in the room, which was broke up and her body was brought down. It is also stated that plea of dowry is somewhat improbable as such allegations cannot be made by only one daughter when both were married in the same family. It is also contended that the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶11

Let the applicant - Shivam involved in aforesaid case crime 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, with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

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

¶13

ii) The applicant 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.

¶14

(iii) 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 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.

¶15

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

¶16

(v) 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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 applicant to prison.

¶19

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.5.2022 Anil

¶21

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.05.14 13:00:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam 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

Mohammad Naim @ Madde Vs State of U.P.

Vidya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Anil Harijan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Renu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shobha Vs State of U.P.