Allowed

Akash Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023/1447/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application in a dowry death case involving sections 304-B and 498A IPC. The applicant argued for accidental death due to family economic disparity and lack of antecedents. The High Court, noting the gravity of the offense and the trial stage, nonetheless allowed bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in terms of the charge sheet under IPC sections 304-B, 498A and D.P. Act sections 3/4.

Akash Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46126

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1447 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Akash Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Pratap Singh,Imran Ullah Khan,Rahul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.345 of 2021 under section 304-B, 498A IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Shahbad, District Hardoi.

¶8

The FIR in question was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant on 13.05.2021. It is stated that she was being harassed for dowry and on 22.07.2021, it was informed to the informant by the applicant that his daughter has died. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report, is firearm injury.

¶9

The counsel for the applicant argues that as per the statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the couple had gone out of vacation and the photographs on record demonstrate that the couple were getting their photographs clicked with the licensed weapon. The counsel for the applicant argues that the cause of death was accidental firing, which is also supported by the witnesses whose statements are on record. He also argues that the applicant belongs to a rich family whereas the informant's family were from economically weaker strata and thus, there could be no demand of dowry. He further argues that the applicant is in custody since 25.07.2021 and even the charges have not been framed till date and the father in law and mother in law have been enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application by arguing that the marriage was only three months old and the offence in question is grevious in nature, as such, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR coupled with the fact the applicant is in custody since 25.07.2021 having no criminal antecedents and the trial has not even started as the charges have not been framed, the applicant

¶12

is entitled for the bail. Thus, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Akash Chaudhary be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(c) 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.7.2023

¶18

VNP/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akash Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Chaudhary 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

Suraj @ Arif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Bodhraj Alias Bojhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Ranjeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shivakant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Mohd. Sadik Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.