Allowed

Kapil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2022BAIL/40062/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Kapil in a case under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Court observed that key prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and the applicant had no prior criminal history, finding that he made out a case for bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions including appearance for recording of statements and prohibiting adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40062 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kapil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Tripathi,Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 335 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sehramau South, District Shahjahanpur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that applicant was married to the victim-deceased on 16.04.2017, however despite three years of marriage, she was unable to bear a child.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that during the course of trial, statement of two prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dev Narayan and PW-2 Pushpa Devi, father and mother of the deceased respectively, has been recorded, however, they have not at all supported the prosecution story and as such, both have been declared hostile.

¶10

PW-1 in his statement has stated that his daughter was suffering from epileptic fits and despite continuous medical treatment, her health did not improve and very often in utter frustration, she used to express her desire to end her life.

¶11

PW-1 has further stated that on 12.09.2020 at 11:00 - 12:00 O'clock, when he along with his wife was present in her daughter's house, where construction work was going on, she suffered an epileptic attack and fell down from the

¶12

stairs and suffered several injuries. During night hours, her daughter slept in her room by locking it from inside and in the morning, when he woke up and went to her room, it was found locked from inside and on peeping through the window, he saw her daughter hanging from the hook of the room by her dhoti. Information of which was given to the police, who reached the place of incident and brought down her body by breaking open the door of her room.

¶13

PW-1 has further submitted that his son-in-law Kapil (applicant) was not present there and was called by giving a phone call and information regarding her suicide was given to him. After the inquest, the dead body was sent for the post-mortem. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death has been noted to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.

¶14

During cross-examination, on his attention been drawn to his statement shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC, PW-1 has categorically stated that he has not given any such statement to the police and has clearly denied the suggestion that he was not present at her daughter's house.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that PW-2 Pushpa Devi, mother of the deceased, has also been examined. During trial, she, in her statement, has also reiterated the same story as stated by PW-1 Dev Narayan. On her attention been drawn to her statement shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC, PW-2 has categorically stated that she has not given any such statement to the police.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 19.09.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. The charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he may be released on bail.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that both the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dev Narayan and PW-2 Pushpa Devi, father and mother of the deceased respectively, have not supported the prosecution story and have been declared hostile.

¶18

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned

¶19

counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant was married to the victimdeceased on 16.04.2017, however despite three years of marriage, she was not having any issue.

¶20

According to the statement of PW-1 Dev Narayan, father of the deceased, it appears that the victim was suffering from epileptic fits and despite continuous medical treatment, her health did not improve and very often in utter frustration, she used to express her desire to end her life. PW-1 has further stated that on 12.09.2020 at 11:00 - 12:00 O'clock, when he along with his wife was present in her daughter's house, where construction work was going on, she suffered an epileptic attack and fell down from the stairs and suffered several injuries. During night hours, her daughter slept in her room by locking it from inside and in the morning, when he woke up and went to her room, it was found locked from inside and on peeping through the window, her daughter was found hanging from the hook of the room by her dhoti. Information of which was given to the police, who reached the place of incident and brought down her body by breaking open the door of her room.

¶21

¶22

PW-2 Pushpa Devi, mother of the deceased, has also been examined. During trial, she, in her statement, has also reiterated the same story as stated by PW-1 Dev Narayan. On her attention been drawn to her statement shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC, PW-2 has categorically stated that she has not given any such statement to the police.

¶23

Furthermore, the applicant is in jail since 19.09.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. The charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when both the witnesses have not supported the prosecution story at all and have been declared hostile, I am of the

¶25

view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant Kapil be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶26

(1). 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.

¶27

(2). 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 IPC.

¶28

(3). 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 IPC.

¶29

(4). 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 the 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶33

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶34

The trial court is expected to make all endeavours to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment in concluding the trial.

¶35

Order Date :- 6.12.2022 Nadim

¶36

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.12.07 11:19:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kapil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil 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

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Other

Pratap Lodhi @ Mukhiya Vs State of U.P.

Satya Bhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahiba Vs State of U.P.

Anubhav Chaudhary @ Nonu Vs State of U.P.

Shahwaj Khan Vs State of U.P.