Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52668 of 2022

Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Archna Singh Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant- Mahendra Singh seeks bail in Case Crime No. 45 of 2022, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Jawan, District Aligarh.

¶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's son Gaurav was married to the victim on 7.12.2020.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant has never demanded any additional dowry nor has ever tortured, maltreated or subjected her to cruelty on account of non-fulfilment of additional dowry. General and vague allegations of demand of additional dowry has been made against him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the post mortem report wherein the Doctor has noted the cause of death to be asphyxia as result of hanging. Except ligature mark, there is no other injury on the person of the deceased.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that on the basis of general and vague allegations as many as 7-8 persons have been nominated in the F.I.R. There is no specific allegation against the applicant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.7.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering the evidence as such prima facie a case for bail is made out.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record, it is evident that applicant has never demanded any additional dowry nor has ever tortured or maltreated or subjected her to cruelty on account of non-fulfilment of additional dowry. General and vague allegations of demand of additional dowry has been made against him. The post mortem report shows the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of hanging. Except ligature mark, there is no other injury on the person of the deceased.On the basis of general and vague allegations as many as 7-8 persons have been nominated in the F.I.R. There is no specific allegation against the applicant. Further more, the applicant is in jail since 13.7.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering the evidence. In the backdrop of the said facts and circumstances prima facie a case for bail is made out.

¶15

Let applicant- Mahendra Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(2). The applicant shall remain present before the

¶18

trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 28.11.2022

¶25

R

¶26

Digitally signed by RAM ASARE MORYA Date: 2022.11.28 14:37:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Neelam Vs State of U.P.

Hariom Goswami Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Renu Devi Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Smt Dropati Vs State of U.P.

Smt Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.