Allowed

Pradeep Jain v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 May 2023BAIL/19126/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by an accused charged with abetment to suicide and criminal conspiracy. Despite allegations of marital strife and illicit relationships, finding no concrete evidence of abetment, the applicant was granted bail on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with specific conditions.

Pradeep Jain Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:111682

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19126 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 179 of 2023, under Sections 147, 306 and 120B IPC, Police Station Uttar, District Firozabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and others under sections 147, 302 I20-B IPC and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was performed with the deceased about ten years before and on 7.9.2013, informant received an information that his sister has died and when he arrived at the house of applicant then found that on the face of his sister, there were number of marks of injuries. It is further mentioned in the FIR that actually deceased did not die due to illness but she was murdered by applicant and his family members. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant was having affair with coaccused Kiran.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and applicant is although husband of the deceased but he never tortured the deceased in any manner. He further submitted that applicant was not having any illicit relationship with anybody and actually due to poor financial condition of applicant, victim i.e. his wife remained under depression and only due to this reason, he committed suicide and he further submitted that immediately after the incident, applicant informed the informant and police and on the information given by one of the friend of the applicant, inquest proceeding was commenced and in the inquest proceeding,

¶10

brothers of the deceased were panch witnesses but at that time they did not make any allegation and after 10 days FIR of the instant case was lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations. He further submitted that this fact clearly suggests that applicant has been falsely implicated by the informant in the present case.

¶11

He further submitted that even from the post mortem report of the deceased, it reflects that she died due to ante mortem hanging and her hyoid bone was intact. He further submitted that during investigation, statements of two children of the applicant were recorded by the Investigating Officer and they stated that on that fateful day, there was quarrel took place between applicant and deceased i.e. husband and wife and thereafter in the morning when they wake up then they found that her mother was not alive.

¶12

He further submitted that even if due to some quarrel with the husband, deceased hanged herself then it cannot be said to be a case of abatement. He next submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 18.3.2023, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation that applicant was having illicit relationship with co-accused Kiran and due to that reason deceased committed suicide. Therefore, there is evidence of abatement against the applicant and considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased, he should not be released on bail.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

Initially, in the present matter FIR was lodged under section 302 IPC but subsequently, case was converted under section 306 IPC and according to the prosecution, due to illicit relationship of the applicant and co-accused Kiran deceased i.e. wife of the applicant committed suicide but apart from the bald allegation, there is no other evidence with regard to the alleged illicit relationship of the applicant and co-accused on record and from the perusal of the statements of the children of applicant and deceased, it appears that some dispute arose between husband and wife and merely on the basis of a quarrel between husband and wife, it cannot be said that due to the abatement after quarrel, wife committed suicide.

¶16

Therefore, from the discussions made above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Pradeep Jain , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.5.2023

¶25

Ankita

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Jain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Jain 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shanker Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shah Alam @ Gamgam Vs State of U.P.

Khalid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others