Allowed

Vinod Kumar Kaushal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2022BAIL/9870/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Vinod Kumar Kaushal in a case registered under Sections 498A, 306, 506 I.P.C. The applicant was convicted and charged in connection with the death of his wife. The court imposed specific bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding presence in court and trial timelines.

Vinod Kumar Kaushal Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9870 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Kaushal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Prakash Singh,Raj Kiran Chaudhary

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sharad Kumar, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. B.P. Rai, the learned counsel for first informant.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by applicant- Vinod Kumar Kaushal seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 306, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Rajatalab, District- Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It transpires from record that marriage of applicant Vinod Kumar was solemnized with Sangeeta on 10.05.2005. However, after expiry of a period of more than 16 years from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 23.10.2021 in which the wife of applicant consumed some poisonous substance. It is the case of applicant that immediately she was taken to the hospital but she succumbed to the poisonous consumed by her. According to the applicant, aforesaid information was given on mobile phone to the family members of the deceased.

¶9

On the next day, Sant Lal (father of the deceased) lodged an F.I.R. dated 24.10.2021, which was registered as Case Crime No.50 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Rajatalab, District- Varanasi. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons, namely, Vinod Kumar Kaushal (husband), Mahendra Pratap Kaushal (father-in-law), Jadavati (mother-inlaw), Manoj (devar) and Rani Devi (devrani) of the deceased have been nominated as named accused.

¶10

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the affect that marriage of Sangeeta (daughter of first informant) was solemnized with Vinod Kumar Kaushal (applicant) on 10.05.2005 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After

¶11

marriage, relationship in between the daughter of first informant and her in-laws was cordial. However, after the birth of second child, differences cropped up. Not only cruelty was committed upon her but named accused also exhorted that she be put to death.

¶12

After lodging of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Inquest (panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 24.10.2021. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was suicidal. Thereafter, post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. As such, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. However, no external or internal ante-mortem injuries was found by the Autopsy Surgeon on the body of deceased. However, the viscera report has not yet been received from Chief Chemical Analyst.

¶13

During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he opined to submit a charge-sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet dated 20.01.2022, whereby two of the named accused i.e. applicant- Vinod Kumar Kaushal and his father Mahendra Pratap Kausal have been chargesheeted under sections 498A, 306, 506 I.P.C., whereas the other named accused have been exculpated.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is the husband of deceased and named as well as charge-sheeted accused, but he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such, applicant is being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number. It is then contended that deceased was a short-tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step for terminating her life by consuming poison. The bona fide of the applicant is that no external or internal ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The occurrence in question has taken place after 16 years of marriage. From the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased, two children were born. However, the statements of both the children have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer upto this stage. There is no such material on the basis of which it can be definitely inferred for applicant as abetted, instigated or conspired in the commission of alleged crime. No criminal proceedings were ever initiated against applicant or his

¶15

family members during the interregnum regarding commission of cruelty upon deceased which also speaks of the bona fide of the applicant.

¶16

It is lastly contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 26.10.2021. As such, he has undergone more than five and a half months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. On the cumulative strength of above, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed this application for bail. They jointly submit that applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused, as such, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, they could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, learned counsel for the first informant, upon perusal of record and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and accusations made but without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant, Vinod Kumar Kaushal be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶21

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶22

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE

¶23

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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶24

(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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶25

(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.

¶26

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of condition mentioned above.

¶27

Order Date :- 19.4.2022 Saif

¶28

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.04.26 12:28:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar Kaushal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Kaushal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khittu Vs State of U.P.

Brijkishor @ Birju Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.