Allowed

Sonu Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2022BAIL/9777/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the court acknowledged a prima facie case for bail despite allegations of dowry harassment and suicide. The court granted bail subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance, prohibition of adjournments, and compliance with trial procedures, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and sureties subject to conditions of regular court attendance and no abuse of liberty of bail.

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9777 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Utkarsh, Rakesh Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Rakesh Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.87 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304 B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Babhani, District Sonbhadara with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

The first information report of this incident was lodged by first informant about unnatural death of his daughter who was married with applicant-Sonu Kumar on 13.06.2020 and it was alleged in the FIR that the applicant was harassing his daughter in connection with demand of additional dowry. It is further alleged that on 22.08.2021 on account of some dispute, the deceased left the house of the applicant and went to her parental home and on the same day after depositing Rs.35,000/- by first informant in the account of her daughter, she returned back at her husband's house and on 01.09.2021 at about 1.00 pm he received an information that his daughter has committed suicide.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned first information report. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. He has further submitted that the deceased was a short tampered lady and on account of which she committed suicide by hanging herself. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem hanging, and excepting ligature mark there is no other anti-mortem injury found in person of the deceased. He has lastly submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 03.09.2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that there is general allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty against the applicant, considering the period of detention of the applicant and considering all other attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶11

Let the applicant-Sonu Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶16

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.5.2022

¶20

Ajeet

¶21

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.05.27 16:24:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar 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

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kailashi Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay @ Gulli Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Subhawati Devi Vs State of U.P.