Allowed

Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2022BAIL/5464/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Chandra Pal Singh, charged under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held he made out a case given his separate living arrangement and lack of specific allegations against him.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, cooperating in trial, and avoiding criminal activity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5464 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chandra Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunita Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Narayan Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Shri Surendra Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the informant/complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Chandra Pal Singh for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.0293 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986, Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh, during trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant is the father-in-law (Sasur) of the deceased and he has been falsely roped in the crime on the basis of his relation with the husband of the deceased and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶8

It is further submitted that as per the version of the prosecution, the deceased was married to the son of the applicant on 17.02.2015 and his death has been caused by the accused persons named in the first information report lodged on 24.07.2021 on the basis of non fulfillment of the demand of dowry. The postmortem report suggests that the death is caused due to consumption of poison. The viscera was preserved and as per report of the viscera, aluminium phosphide has been found therein.

¶9

Highlighting the above factual matrix, it is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that since the marriage of the deceased with the son of the applicant was solemnized on 17.02.2015, the applicant was not having any concern with their affairs as the applicant was living separately in the same house and he is not aware as to what had happened at the relevant date and time.

¶10

It is further submitted that it appears that on the basis of some altercation and strained matrimonial relations, the deceased had

¶11

consumed some poisonous substance and the applicant, who was living separately in the same house, is not having any connection with the same.

¶12

It is also submitted that general allegations of demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to the cruelty in lieu thereof has been levelled against all the persons named in the F.I.R., however, no specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant. Applicant is in jail in this case since 21.11.2021 and he is not having any criminal history. Charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶13

Shri Surendra Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the informant/complainant, however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that there was no apparent cause for which the deceased could commit suicide and it is a case of murder and having regard to the heinousness of the crime, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. also opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and having regard to the manner in which the crime has been committed, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that after six years of marriage the deceased had died. No apparent cause of death was ascertained in the postmortem report, however, viscera was preserved and the forensic report suggests that aluminium phosphide has been found therein. There are general allegations of demand of dowry and subjecting deceased to the cruelty in lieu thereof against all accused persons named in the F.I.R. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was living separately in the same house and he was not having any concern with the affairs of his son and daughterin-law (deceased), who were also living separately in the same house. Applicant is in jail in this case since 21.11.2021 without any previous criminal history and charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered

¶17

view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶18

Let the accused/applicant- Chandra Pal Singh involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 20.4.2022 Anupam S/-

¶26

Digitally signed by ANUPAM SINGH PATEL Date: 2022.04.21 11:27:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Pal Singh 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

Ajay Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayani Singh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P.

Vimala Devi Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chand Babu@ Sameer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others