Allowed

Sipahi Lal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2022BAIL/5315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Sipahi Lal, accused of dowry death under IPC 304B and 498A. The court held it was a fit case for bail, imposing standard conditions regarding witness tampering and trial attendance, while explicitly reserving judgment on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding witness conduct and trial attendance.

Sipahi Lal Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5315 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sipahi Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arimardan Yadav,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Maohammd Nadeem

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vishwa Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. None appears for the first informant even in the revised call.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Sipahi Lal under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 376 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Kannauj vide order dated 17.1.2022.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 25.10.2021 has been lodged by father of the deceased against the applicant and three other named persons stating therein that the marriage of his daughter Premlata was solemnized with the co-accused Sunil Kumar @ Guddu in the year 2017. He spent money in the marriage of his daughter according to his status. The deceased did not have a child and due to this reason, the applicant and other co-accused persons murdered his daughter on 24.10.2021 at about 7.00 p.m.

¶9

After lodging of the first information report, inquest proceedings were commenced on 25.10.2021 at 13.50 hours on the spot. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was also conducted on 25.10.2021 at 3.10 p.m. As per inquest report, except ligature mark no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased, but as per postmortem report, except ligature mark seven other injuries like as abrasion and contusion were found over the nasal bone, middle of the forehead, lower lip, right side of chin, right side of neck, right

¶10

elbow and right forearm. Cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. After recording the statements of the first informant and other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and other co-accused Sunil Kumar @ Guddu on 22.11.2021. The Investigating Officer has exonerated two other named persons. The applicant was arrested on 17.11.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that general allegation of demand of dowry and harassment has been levelled against the applicant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present applicant. As per inquest report, except ligature mark, no other injury was found on the person of the deceased. Marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased in the year 2017. The applicant is 58 years old. It is further argued that the husband of the deceased, co-accused Sunil Kumar @ Guddu is in judicial custody.

¶12

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶15

(a) The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased;

¶16

(b) Marriage of the co-accused Sunil Kumar @ Guddu was solemnized with the deceased in the year 2017;

¶17

¶18

(d) General allegation of demand of dowry and harassment has been levelled against the applicant;

¶19

(e) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the

¶20

present applicant.

¶21

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶22

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶23

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

¶24

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶26

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶28

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶29

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶31

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶32

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶33

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶34

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶35

Order Date :- 26.5.2022 T. Sinha

¶36

Digitally signed by TRIPTI SINHA Date: 2022.06.01 16:19:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sipahi Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sipahi Lal 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

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Sabuddin @ Shahbuddin and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharad Mishra @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Meena Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Saleem Vs State of U.P.