Allowed

Sahul Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023/335/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Sahul Saroj charged under dowry and culpable homicide not amounting to murder sections. The Court relied on the post-mortem report, variance in prosecution witness statement, and applicant's lack of criminal records.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond with two sureties of like amount each, subject to conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:44794

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 335 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sahul Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Verma,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Kaushal Kishore Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2. The FIR in question was lodged after 22 days of the incident alleging the offence under Section 304B read with Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the postmortem report does not indicate any injury over the body in question and the cause of death is asphyxia on account of antemortem injury. He argues that at the time of the inquest, the informant was also present, however, no valid explanation has been offered with regard to lodging of the FIR after 22 days. He draws my attention to the statement of PW - 1 during trial, which is at variance with the allegation levelled in the FIR. The father-in-law and mother-in-law have already been enlarged on bail and the applicant is in custody since 16.10.2021 and has no criminal antecedents.

¶9

4. Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that the offence is serious in nature, the delay in filing the FIR has been adequately explained and thus, the bail application deserves to be rejected as the applicant cannot claim parity with the father and mother.

¶10

5. Considering the submissions made by the parties; perusal of the post-mortem report reflects the cause of death is antemortem hanging, no injuries were found over the body in question, PW - 1 herself does not support the prosecution story in the statement, which is on record coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 16.10.2021, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶11

6. Let the applicant Sahul Saroj be released on bail in FIR No.393 of 2021, under Section 498A, 304B IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mandhata, District Pratapgarh

¶12

on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.7.2023

¶17

nishant

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sahul Saroj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahul Saroj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anurag Dubey Vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sharafat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Furkan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Mohit Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.