Allowed

Mahendra @ Malkhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022BAIL/45343/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application challenging a recall of bail or seeking enlargement, the High Court held the applicant fit for bail in a dowry death case. The Court imposed strict conditions regarding court appearances and trial culmination.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions on court attendance and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45343 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra @ Malkhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta,Ashok Kumar Dwivedi,Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Sengar,Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prem Kumar, holding brief of Sri Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in (S.T. No. 31 of 2020) Case Crime No. 217 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Aata, District Jalaun.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is husband of the deceased. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegation against all accused. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. False allegation has been made against the applicant. It has further submitted that the trial is going on and P.W. 1 Ramjit (Father of the deceased), P.W. 2 Smt. Rekha Devi (Mother of the deceased) and P.W. 3 Ravindra Kumar (Cousin brother of the deceased) have not supported the prosecution and they have been declared hostile. In postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been shown shock and asphyxia due to anti mortem hanging. He has further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 1.11.2019.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the application for bail but could not dispute with the aforesaid fact.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Mahendra @ Malkhan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(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.

¶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 IPC.

¶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., 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.

¶14

(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 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

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.11.2022

¶19

¶20

Digitally signed by AFAQ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.19 14:04:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra @ Malkhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra @ Malkhan 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

Ram Lawat Sharma @ Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Nasir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.and a

Kale @ Amir Vs State of U.P.

Mahendrapal Vs State of U.P.

Kailash Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P.