Allowed

Vikas Bhartiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2022BAIL/2835/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, Granting bail to Vikas Bhartiya in a dowry death case under IPC 304-B and 498-A. The High Court released the applicant on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding court presence and procedural compliance, relying on reformative punishment principles.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties of Rs. One Lakh each. Conditions include presence at court, prohibition on adjournments, and verification of sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2835 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas Bhartiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Saroj,Abhishek Kumar Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to malicious intention just to harass the applicant. It is next submitted that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged. There is no independent, impartial reliable eye witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has neither demanded any dowry nor given any physical or mental agony to the deceased. There is neither any direct or indirect evidence against the applicant which remotely connect the applicant with the present case. The applicant was not present in the house at time of alleged occurrence. As per post mortem report it is a case of suicide by hanging. The applicant has no motive to commit the alleged offence. The medico legal report shows that there is no injury internal or external on the person of the deceased. It is also submitted that PW-1 and PW-2 have turned hostile before the concerned trial court below. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant is in jail since 11.06.2021, and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant without disputing the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that in case applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment , and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let applicant- Vikas Bhartiya, be released on bail arising out of Case Crime No. 0361 of 2021, under Sections - 498-A, 304-B, IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Handia, District- Prayagraj/Allahabad, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (Rs. One Lakh each) (One should be of a family member) before the court concerned subject to

¶10

following conditions:- :-

¶11

(i) 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.

¶12

(ii) 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.

¶13

(iii) 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.

¶14

(iv) 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.7.2022

¶18

ssm

¶19

Digitally signed by SYED SALMAN MANSOOR Date: 2022.07.28 16:13:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas Bhartiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Bhartiya 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

Sunil Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Tasleem Vs State of U.P.

Murari Vs State of U.P.

Gopal @ Bhaiyan Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Bhoora @ Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Subhash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others