Allowed

Satya Prakash @ Pramod v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022BAIL/35116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed a bail application in a dowry harassment case involving drunken death (suicide). The court found that a case for bail was made out considering the lack of specific role assigned to the applicant and the conduct of prosecution witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by putting up a personal bond and two sureties of equal amount. The conditions of bail were laid down.

Satya Prakash @ Pramod Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35116 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satya Prakash @ Pramod Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Kartikeya,Shresth Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

This is second bail application.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband of deceased and that he has not committed any offence. The marriage of deceased with applicant has taken place on 18.04.2018 and that deceased has committed suicide and cause of death has been shown asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Only general allegations of dowry demand and harassment have been levelled and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.9.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48686 of 2019 and after that statements of all the material witnesses have already been recorded before the Trial Court and they have not supported prosecution version. In his statement before the trial court, P.W.1 Omveer, who is complainant and father of deceased has supported the prosecution in examination-in-chief but in cross examination he back tracked from that version. P.W.2. Manoj Kumari, who is mother of deceased, has not supported prosecution version and she has stated that her daughter was not harassed on account of dowry and that her daughter has never made any complaint to her. Similarly P.W.3. Satish, who is

¶8

relative of informant has also not supported prosecution version and denied the prosecution versing regarding dowry demand or harassment of deceased. Similar is the statement of P.W.4 Shakshi Shashi. Learned counsel submitted that a number of formal witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, the trial would take sufficiently long time and that applicant is languishing in jail since 05.12.2018 having no criminal history and that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Satya Prakash @ Pramod involved in case crime no.394 of 2018, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Saiyan, District Agra, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 Neeraj

¶19

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.10 17:25:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satya Prakash @ Pramod v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash @ Pramod 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

Ateeq Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudesh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Alias Shoyeb Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.