Allowed

Prakash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2022BAIL/8223/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed bail to Prakash in a dowry death case (IPC Sections 498-A, 304B) where cause of death could not be ascertained. The court cited Supreme Court precedents on bail, noting no specific role against the applicant despite general harassment allegations, and released him on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount.

Prakash Vs State of U.P. — Medical Negligence | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8223 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh,Dinesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Kishore Gupta holding brief of Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Munna Kumar Singh, Beif Holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Prakash under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 387 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Meerut vide order dated 20.01.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that first information report dated 15.08.2021 has been lodged against the applicant and 4 other family members of the applicant including husband of the deceased by the brother of the deceased stating that marriage of his sister Ravita was solemnized with co-accused Narendra on 14.02.2021 and he spent money in marriage as per his capacity. After marriage coaccused Narendra and his family members made cruelty with regard to the additional dowry and committed

¶8

maarpeet. On 14.08.2021 applicant and other co-accused persons committed maarpeet and after that they forcibly took acid in her mouth by which his sister has died during the treatment in the hospital.

¶9

Before lodging of the first information report inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 15.08.2021 at 11:00 am at mortuary in hospital. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 15.08.2021 at 4:30 p.m., as per postmortem report multiple contusion were present over right arm, half face, lower angle of right scapula and right pelvi average size of contusion is 10 Cm X 6 Cm and abraded contusion 7 Cm X 2 Cm present over chin. Cause of death could not ascertain and viscera was preserved. After recoding the statement of prosecution witnesses charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused Narendra and Investigating Officer has exonerated three named co-accused persons. Applicant was arrested on 09.09.2021.

¶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. It is further argued that applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It has been further argued that the second marriage of the sister of first informant was solemnized with co-accused Narendra. This is a second marriage of co-accused Narendra. It is further submitted that the applicant is separated to co-accused Narendra and the deceased both are living separately from the present applicant. It has further argued that on 14.08.2021 at about 10:00 hours some dispute begun between co-accused Narendra and deceased and Narendra

¶11

was hit by hand and thereafter he went to merchant shop in the village in between deceased went on roof and locked the room and she drink acid which is kept for cleaning for toilet. It has been further argued that general allegation of harassment and demand of dowry has been assigned against the applicant, there is no specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant. It has further argued that there is no allegation with regard to the additional dowry demand of article in additional dowry. It has further argued that set of same allegation Investigating Officer has exonerated two named persons sister-in-law and husband of one sister-in-law. He lastly argued that the applicant has no criminal history and the applicant has not convicted by any court in any cognizable offence 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. 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 the father-in-law of the deceased.

¶15

(b) The second marriage of the deceased as well as coaccused Narendra was solemnized on 14.02.2021 six

¶16

months prior to the incident.

¶17

¶18

(d) A general allegation of harassment and demand of dowry has been assigned against the applicant, there is no specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Let applicant, Prakash be released on bail in the aforesaid

¶22

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) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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 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 :- 17.5.2022 Vikram

¶36

Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2022.05.20 20:11:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Roshan Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Suneel Soni Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Rajan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Siraj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajaram Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.