Allowed

Vikas v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2022BAIL/42473/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant accused in a criminal trial involving dowry death allegations, holding it to be a fit case despite the heinous nature of the offence. Bail was subject to specific conditions regarding court appearances and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42473 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Yadav, Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 1179 of 2021, under Sections 498-A/304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is the brother-in-law (Nandoi) of the deceased. He has no concern with the alleged incident. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 15.09.2021 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 02.12.2021, but no explanation has been given. Further submission is that the injured was brought to the hospital by husband on the same day i.e. on 15.09.2021 wherein she was remain hospitalized till 26.09.2021 and thereafter she was discharged for better treatment at SGPGI, Lucknow. On 28.09.2021, the statement of the injured was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer wherein she has alleged her husband and Nandoi. Further contention is that on 30.09.2021 the injured was admitted in KGMU, Lucknow and after 25 days of the admission during treatment she was died on 25.10.2021 but still statement of the deceased was not recorded by the Magistrate. As per postmortem report, the cause of death is septicaemia due to ante mortem burn injuries. Further contention is that the deceased was burned 40-50% and she was in full conscious and was in a position to give statement, but she has not given any statement before Dr. as well as Magistrate. Further contention is that the statement of the injured was not recorded by the Magistrate or by the doctor, therefore, the statement given by the injured before the IO is not reliable as the same is manipulated. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate

¶8

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 have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2022 having no previous criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the statement of the deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer, which was treated as dying declaration. The offence is heinous in nature. The deceased has specifically alleged the applicant in her statement recorded before investigating officer, as such, applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Vikas involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶13

(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 IPC.

¶14

(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., 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, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶15

(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 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

¶16

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

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.12.2022

¶21

Ajeet

¶22

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.12.20 16:20:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas 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

Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amjad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagvir Singh Vs State of U.P.