Allowed

Rajmohammad Shah v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2022BAIL/22501/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge passed an order on a Criminal Misc. Bail Application regarding an FIR alleging dowry death. Acknowledging the gravity of the offence but noting the lack of specific succession to the applicant, the court ruled that bail was made out without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail furnished on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions of not tampering with witnesses, appearing for trial, and not abusing liberty of bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22501 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajmohammad Shah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation in the F.I.R. against the applicant of causing dowry death to his wife.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that marriage of the applicant with the deceased took place six years ago, thereafter three children were born out of the said wedlock. It is further submitted that on account of dispute with the family members of the matrimonial home, she committed suicide by way of hanging. There is no specific allegation against the applicant in the F.I.R. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 23.06.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Rajmohammad Shah, involved in Case Crime No. 431 of 2021, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B, 506 IPC and section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Kasya, DistrictKushinagar, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten

¶12

the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) 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.

¶16

(v) 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 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.

¶17

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.9.2022 Vibha Singh

¶20

Digitally signed by VIBHA SINGH Date: 2022.09.03 17:11:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajmohammad Shah v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajmohammad Shah 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

Chandan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Premdas Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Hoti Vs State of U.P.