Allowed

Rohit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023BAIL/18811/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC for a dowry death allegation, the Allahabad High Court granted bail citing jail overcrowding and the right to speedy trial, directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within one year.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and adherence to strict conditions regarding court attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

Rohit Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140294

¶2

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18811 of 2023 Applicant :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶5

There is allegation against the applicant in the FIR of causing dowry death of his wife.

¶6

Counsel for the applicant submits that P.W-1, father of the deceased, has stated that the victim was under depression and she committed suicide. P.W-2 has been declared hostile.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant is in jail since 07.06.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. Trial may take time to conclude.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Rohit, involved in Case Crime No. 315 of 2020, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before

¶11

issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. 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

(iv) 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.

¶16

(v) The applicant 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 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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶20

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Chetram @ Maithli Vs State of U.P.

Harish Vs State of U.P.

Lallan Sharma Vs State of U.P.