Allowed

Rajendra Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2023/11196/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Granth permission of bail to the accused-applicant, a 60-year-old father-in-law, in a case involving dowry death. Considering his age, the cardiac cause of death, and the release of a co-accused on parity principles, the court granted bail with strict undertakings to attend court hearings.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties in the like amount, subject to specific undertakings regarding court attendance.

Rajendra Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11196 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Anjali Dubey,Rajiv Mishra,Soniya Mishra Soni Pathak

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and gone through the entire record.

¶7

By means of this bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.0282 of 2022, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act lodged at Police Station-Kheri, District- Kheri.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused-applicant is father-in-law of deceased, Shilpi Gupta; marriage between the deceased and son of the accused-applicant, Sandeep Gupta took place five years before the date of incident; out of wedlock, two children got born from the deceased, who are aged around 4 years and 8 months respectively; allegation against the accused-applicant is that he, along with his wife and son, used to torture and subject the deceased to cruelty for dowry demand; on 22.06.2022, the accused-applicant and co-accused subjected the deceased to extreme cruelty as a result thereof she died; postmortem report suggests four ante-mortem injuries and cause of death in viscera examination has been opined to be cardiac failure due to cardiac arrhythmias.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has further submitted that the injuries caused to the deceased could not be caused by the accusedapplicant as he was 60 years of age and he never demanded any dowry; the accused-applicant has been made accused only being father-in-law, though he has a separate living from the deceased and her husband. It has further been submitted that childhood/ future career of two minor children of the deceased would be ruined if the accused-applicant remains in jail as there is no male member of the family to look-after them.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has also submitted that the coaccused of this case namely, Smt. Santoshi Gupta who is mother-in-law of the deceased, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11637 of 2022. Therefore, on the basis of principles of parity the accused-applicant may also be released on bail.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances, particularly, the fact that the accused-applicant is father-in-law and cause of death is opined to be cardiac failure due to cardiac arrhythmias as well as the fact that the coaccused, Smt. Santoshi Gupta, has been granted bail by this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶12

Let applicant- Rajendra Gupta, accused of above-mentioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) the applicant(s) 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;

¶14

(ii). the applicant(s) 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶15

(iii). in case, the applicant(s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) 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; and

¶16

(iv) the applicant(s) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid terms, this bail application is allowed.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Sharad Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Manorma Devi @ Manorama Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Geeta Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Lko.

Saurabh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Bade Lal Dhobi @ Bade Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.