Allowed

Vinesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2022BAIL/45516/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to the applicant, Vinesh, in a case involving dowry death and cruelty. The order was based on the hostile testimony of all three prosecution witnesses and the absence of any threat to judicial process.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, bound by conditions to attend hearings and not seek adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45516 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar 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. 49 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Islam Nagar, District Budaun, 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 the applicant was married to the victim-deceased about six years back and false report of dowry death has been got registered against him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Ram Charan, father of the deceased, recorded during the course of trial, in which, he has categorically stated that he had married his daughter with the applicant about ten years back and there was no demand of dowry before or after the marriage and his daughter was living happily with her in-laws. About one and half years back, while his son-inlaw was away, some unknown person had entered in the house of her daughter and caused her death. When his son-in-law returned back, he found his wife was lying in a dead condition, as such, he immediately informed him and FIR was lodged, which was not even read out to him, at the behest of the police.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that on the basis of the said testimony, first informant has been declared hostile. On his attention been drawn to his statement shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC, he has categorically stated that no such statement was given by him to the police. On being confronted by the Court, he has completely denied the factum of dowry death and has clearly stated that FIR was lodged by the

¶11

police itself.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that PW-2 and PW-3, who are the other witnesses, have also not supported the prosecution story at all and have been declared hostile and even in the cross-examination, they have neither supported the prosecution story nor their statements shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Looking to the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of trial, prima facie a case for bail is made out.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 28.02.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit and has been regularly cooperating in the process of trial. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he may be released on bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that all the three prosecution witnesses including the father of the deceased, who lodged the FIR, have not supported the prosecution story at all and have been declared hostile.

¶15

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant was married to the victim about six years back.

¶16

Ram Charan, father of the deceased, in his statement recorded during the course of trial, has categorically stated that he had married his daughter with the applicant about ten years back and there was no demand of dowry before or after the marriage and his daughter was living happily with her in-laws. About one and half years back, while his son-in-law was away, some unknown person had entered in the house of her daughter and caused her death. When his son-in-law returned back, he found his wife was lying in a dead condition, as such, he immediately informed him and FIR was lodged at the behest of the police, which was not even read out to him. Even on being confronted by the Court, he has not supported the prosecution story at all.

¶17

PW-2 and PW-3, who are the other witnesses, have also not supported the prosecution story at all and have been declared hostile and even in the cross-examination, they have neither supported the prosecution story nor their statements shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

¶18

Furthermore, the applicant is in jail since 28.02.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that all the three prosecution witnesses have been declared completely hostile, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant Vinesh 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:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail. The bail application is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 8.12.2022 Nadim

¶27

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.12.08 16:37:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinesh 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

Nishar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushil Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Akhtariya@ Mumtaj Jahan Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Guddoo Vs State of U.P.

Sane Alam Vs State of U.P.