Allowed

Chukkha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 May 2022BAIL/18498/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, a 57-year-old with no prior record, imposing specific conditions regarding attendance, evidence tampering, and abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to secure presence and prevent interference with trial.

Chukkha Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18498 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chukkha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 266 of 2018, under Sections 498A/34, 304B/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talbehat, District Lalitpur.

¶7

As per the prosecution version the deceased Kajal was married in the family of the accused applicant in February, 2017 and a female child was born out of the said wedlock. The younger sister of the deceased aged 8 years had been sent to look after the newly born child. As per FIR allegations, on 15.6.2018, the daughter of the informant was done to death by sprinkling kerosene by her husband. The applicant, who happens to be the brother of the fatherin-law of the deceased, has also been named as one of those instigating the act of the husband. Postmortem of the deceased has been conducted, as per which, the cause of death is due to antemortem burn injuries.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been summoned subsequently under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that there was no specific allegation to connect the applicant with the act of crime. Statement of 8 years old minor girl namely Mohini under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been referred to, as per which, the deceased died on account of burn injuries after her husband had sprinkled kerosene on her. She also stated that nobody else was there in the family. It is stated that the statement of the minor girl has been recorded much later and relying upon it the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant is absolutely vague and he otherwise is living separately. It is also stated that the applicant is 57 years of age and has no previous criminal history. It is further stated that grant of bail to the applicant will not create any ground for the husband to claim parity in the matter. It is lastly argued that the applicant is in jail since 31.3.2022 and 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.

¶9

Learned AGA opposes the bail application but facts as have been urged on behalf of the applicant are not seriously disputed.

¶10

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; perused the materials placed on record; considering the fact that the applicant is 57 years of age and has no criminal history, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶11

Let the applicant - Chukkha 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A 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 sufÏcient 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 :- 19.5.2022 Ranjeet Sahu

¶21

Digitally signed by RANJEET SAHU Date: 2022.05.20 10:20:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chukkha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chukkha 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

Tarkeshwar Ojha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Munnalal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

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

Sonu Alias Rajesh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saeed Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Shanker Vs State of U.P.