Allowed

Om Prakash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 May 2022BAIL/6384/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Allahabad allowed bail to Om Prakash in a case concerning dowry harassment and death by suicide. The court found no specific role attributed to the applicant and deemed it a fit case for bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail to the applicant on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions preventing tampering and ensuring court attendance.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6384 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Singh Tomar

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Om Prakash under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 473 of 2021, for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station- Kotwali Badalpur, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar vide order dated 21.01.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 09.11.2021 has been lodged against the applicant and five other family members and one mediator of the marriage by father of the deceased stating therein that the marriage of his daughter Poonam was solemnized with coaccused Mahesh (son of the applicant) on 26.06.2021 and the first informant has spent Rs. 17 lacs and also given one Alto800 car in her marriage but the applicant and other co-accused persons were not satisfied. After the marriage they started torture to the daughter of the first informant in lieu of demand of additional dowry. It is also alleged that co-accused Mahesh had an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law and due to which the husband of the first informant's daughter used to committing marpit and abuse her often after drinking alcohol. On 23.09.2021 his daughter caught red handed the co-accused Mahesh in a compromising position (husband of the deceased) with his sister-in-law. On 26.09.2021, the applicant and the coaccused, in lieu of the demand of additional dowry, again committing marpit with his daughter and left her in her maternal house at about 05:00 PM. On 08.11.2021 at about 10:00 A.M. co-accused Mahesh called the first informant's

¶8

daughter and abused her, which made her depressed and at about 11 A.M. her daughter committed suicide.

¶9

After lodging of the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 08.11.2021 at 16 hours. Postmortem of the deceased was also conducted on 08.11.2021 at 03:50 P.M. As per postmortem report, except ligature mark no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet. The applicant was arrested on 03.12.2021.

¶10

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 and aged about 65 years. It is further argued that the marriage of his son Mahesh was solemnized with the deceased on 26.06.2021 about four and a half months prior to the incident. It is further submitted that the incident took place at the parental house of the deceased. It is next argued that general allegation of demand of dowry and harassment have been assigned to the applicant. There is no specific role and involvement attributed to the applicant. It is further submitted that except ligature mark no other injury was found on the body of the deceased.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 F.I.R. 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.

¶13

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

¶14

(a) The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and aged about 65 years, the incident took place at the parental house of the first informant;

¶15

(b) Marriage of the daughter of the first informant was solemnized with the son of the applicant prior four and a half

¶16

months of the incident

¶17

(c) As per allegation of the first informant report, daughter of the first informant committed suicide at her parental house;

¶18

(d) General allegation of demand of dowry and harassment have been assigned to the applicant, no specific role and involvement attributed to the applicant.

¶19

(e) Except ligature mark no other injury was found on the body of the deceased.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Let applicant, Om Prakash 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:

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶26

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/endeavor 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 along-with 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 :- 19.5.2022 Ishan

¶36

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.05.25 17:49:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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

Noor Jahan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Giri and Another Vs State of U.P.

Maishar @ Ramesh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Nisha @ Nesha Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and Another