Allowed

Rajesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2022BAIL/24030/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application regarding allegations of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC, the High Court allowed the bail petition. The court relied on the applicant's lack of previous criminal history and the large mandate of Article 21, citing relevant Apex Court precedents, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions, including conduct and attendance constraints.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24030 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gufran Ahmad Khan,Nazrul Islam Jafri (Senior Adv.),Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Mahipal Singh, Prashant Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation against the applicant that he caused dowry death of his wife.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased did not had cordial relation with the applicant hence she committed suicide by way of hanging. The allegation of demand of dowry in the FIR is incorrect. She has left behind two children and was also pregnant at the time of alleged incident. Trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. The applicant is in jail since 16.11.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶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, Rajesh, involved in Case Crime No. 239 of 2019, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Jarifnagar, DistrictBudaun, 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,

¶11

before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

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

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶20

Order Date :- 30.8.2022 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.01 13:18:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Mehboob Vs State of U.P.

Golu Alias Ajay Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Hari Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Veerpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinit Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Sagar Vs State of U.P.