Allowed

Bhanoo Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023/331/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court at Lucknow, accepting arguments regarding inconsistencies in the FIR and lack of injury on the deceased, held that detailed evidence examination is limited at the bail stage. The court allowed the application, directing the release of the applicant on bail with conditions to file bond and obey trial court

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties with specific undertakings.

Bhanoo Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42243

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 331 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Bhanoo Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Naresh Singh,Manohar Lal Syal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Sahu

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Neeraj Sahu, who has filed Vakakatnama on behalf of complainant.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.257/2022, under Sections 498A, 304B Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Harpalpur, District Hardoi.

¶9

As per the case narrated in the F.I.R. dated 21.06.2022 the present applicant who is the husband of the deceased daughter of the complainant alongwith his other family members killed the daughter of the complainant for dowry demand.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the F.I.R. the daughter of the complainant was killed by the applicant and other co-accused persons by beating her badly, whereas at the time of inquest the complainant i.e. father of the deceased, her uncle and cousin brothers were present but no such allegation was made. It is further submitted that in the post-mortem report there is no mark of any injury inflicted upon the body of the deceased daughter of the complainant. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged after two days of the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon S.A. 1 filed alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 29.05.2023 i.e. statement given by the complainant before the trial court in which he has stated that neither the applicant nor any of his family members ever demanded dowry, particularly four wheel vehicle. They had never harassed the daughter of the complainant. They had also not given poison to the daughter of the complainant. He has not given any such details as mentioned in the F.I.R. The complainant has been declared hostile by the court below. It is further submitted that except the

¶11

statement of the complainant no other incriminating evidence has been found against the applicant during investigation.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 10.09.2022.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that as per the F.I.R. and chargesheet filed against the applicant, offences are made out but unable to dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant as mentioned above.

¶14

On due consideration to the submissions advanced; perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.09.2022 and considering the law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi Vs. State of Gujarat ( Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 10051 of 2022 wherein it has been held that detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoid while passing orders on bail applications as while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited, thus, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Bhanoo Pratap Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) 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.

¶19

(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 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.

¶20

(v) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 S. Kumar

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhanoo Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanoo Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

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

Child in Conflict With Law Thru. Father Md. Raseed @ Raseed Mohammad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Others

Nazim Thru. His Mother Smt. Saira Bano @ Smt. Sakira Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Mukaddar Ali Vs State of U.P.. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Prabal Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sect. Home Deptt. Lko

Anand Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home. Lucknow

Yogesh Kumar Singh Alias Gopu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy (Home) Gov. of U.P Civil Sectt. Lko