High Court allowed bail to the applicant charged with dowry death under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, following precedents on Article 21 and the nature of the case without expressing an opinion on merits.
Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including attendance and no tampering with evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 794 of 2020
Applicant :- Manish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava,Rajesh Yadav,Yadvesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
There is allegation against the applicant that he has caused dowry death of his wife.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the cause of death of the deceased was not ascertained. Subsequently, on the basis of report of F.S.L. Laboratory, alluminium phosphate was found in the stomach of the deceased.
Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR that the aforesaid poison was given forcibly to the deceased. The deceased committed suicide on account of mis-adjustment in her matrimonial home. Trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. The applicant is in jail since 27.04.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Manish Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 264 of 2018, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Narsaina, DistrictBulandshahar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) 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 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.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.
Order Date :- 1.9.2022 Rohit
Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.02 13:25:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted in a case involving dowry death allegations despite the serious nature of the offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶10
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.Followed¶10
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manish Kumar
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Siddharth
Parties & counsel
