Allowed

Sandeep Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2022BAIL/3316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of applicant Sandeep Kumar Maurya, a brother-in-law of the deceased in a dowry death case involving abetment of suicide. The Court held that the applicant made out a case for bail and released him on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount with specific conditions attached to ensure cooperation and attendance.

Sandeep Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3316 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Pathak,Arvind Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhineet Jaiswal,Ashutosh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sanjay Pathak, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Arvind Singh Patel, holding brief of Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for first informant.

¶6

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Sandeep Kumar Maurya, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case crime No. 277 of 2021, under sections 147, 149, 323, 306, 498A3 IPC Police Station- Tharvai District Prayagraj during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 23.10.2021, a belated F.I.R. dated 24.10.2021 was lodged by first informant Ramshiromani Kushwaha and was registered as Case crime No. 277 of 2021, under sections 147, 149, 323, 306, 498A3 IPC Police Station- Tharvai District Prayagraj. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely, Munna, Abhayraj, Jethani of deceased, Elder son of Jethani of deceased and Sandeep have been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶9

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that marriage of Arti daughter of first informant was solemnized with Abhayraj in the year 2013. However, named accused along with other family members of husband of deceased caused physical and mental cruelty upon the deceased. On account of aforesaid, the daughter of first informant committed suicide. F.I.R. further records that on account of conduct of named accused and others.

¶10

After lodging of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The inquest of the body of deceased was conducted on 24.10.2021. In the opinion of witness of inquest (panch witnesses), the nature of death of

¶11

deceased was characterized as suicidal. Thereafter, the postmortem of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The autopsy surgeon found following ante mortem injury on the body of deceased:

¶12

"A ligature mark present all around neck (upper par) except 3 cm gaip an left side Neck the... 2cm

¶13

Ligature mark 2 cm below from Rt ear 6 cm side from chin, 4 cm sie from lt ear."

¶14

During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C who have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. On the basis of above, and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of Investigation, which is substantially adverse to some of the named accused, Investigating Officer opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet dated 18.12.2021, whereby two of the named accused namely, Abhayraj (husband) and Sandeep (Dewar) have been charge sheeted under section 147, 149, 323, 306, 498A3 IPC Police Station- Tharvai District Prayagraj, whereas three of the named accused have been exculpated.

¶15

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is brother-in-law of deceased, named and charge sheeted accused but he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such applicant is being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number. He has then invited attention of Court to the F.I.R. giving rise to this application for bail. On the basis of above, he submits that F.I.R. contains vague allegations that physical and mental cruelty was committed upon deceased by named accused. However, the allegation regarding demand of dowry and commission of physical/mental cruelty upon deceased for fulfilment of additional demand of dowry are conspicuous by their absence in the F.I.R. It is next submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. From the wedlock of deceased three children were born who are still young. In the aforesaid circumstances, there can be no justifiable reason for the applicant to abet in the commission of alleged crime. Upto this stage there is no material on record on the basis of which it can be definitely inferred that applicant has abetted, instigated and conspired in the commission of alleged crime. It is further submitted that applicant is a man of clean

¶16

antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 26.10.2021. As such, he has undergone more than five months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They jointly submit that since applicant is named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. However, he could not dispute the legal and factual submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusations made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant Sandeep Kumar Maurya , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶20

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶21

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶22

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶23

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING

¶24

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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶25

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.4.2022 Arshad

¶27

Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.04.11 16:51:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Dheeraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sagar Ambasht Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Talib Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sangeeta Vs State of U.P.