Dismissed

Karan Peter Masih v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home

Allahabad HC2 May 2023BAIL/21422/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a dowry-related cheating case. Previous interim bail was granted conditionally subject to settling the dispute with the victim. The applicant failed to make any effort to contact the victim's family. The court rejected the bail application and cancelled the interim bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant directed to surrender forthwith before the trial court.

Karan Peter Masih Vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21422 of 2022 Applicant :- Karan Peter Masih Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary Home Counsel for Applicant :- Prakhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Padmaker Pandey

¶2

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

¶4

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Karan Peter Masih, who is involved in Case Crime No. 328 of 2022, under Sections 376(2)N, 406 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶5

On 13.10.2022, following order was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21422 of 2022:

¶6

"Heard Sri Kanhiya Lal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dipanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Karan Peter Masih, involved in Case Crime No.328 of 2022, under Sections 376(2) N, 406 I.P.C & 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant that after entering into engagement, he has refused to marry the victim and is demanding dowry as pre-condition for marriage with her. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegations are false.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but has not disputed the aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions and totality of facts & circumstances of the case, applicant is directed to be enlarged on interim bail for a period of six months. In the meantime he will make effort to settle his dispute with the prosecutrix.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on interim bail for the period of six months on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶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 interim 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 sufÏcient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of interim bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of interim 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 interim bail.

¶18

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

¶19

List this case on 17th April, 2023.

¶20

The applicant will file his afÏdavit of compliance by the next date fixed. If this order is complied by the applicant, his bail will be extended.

¶21

In failure to comply this order, the interim bail for the

¶22

period of six months granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith."

¶23

After passing the order dated 13.10.2022, the matter was again listed on 17.04.2023 and at the request of learned counsel for the applicant two weeks' further time was granted to the applicant to comply with the order dated 13.10.2022 and interim bail order dated 13.10.2022 was extended till the next date of listing.

¶24

On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the informant pointed out that till date no effort has been made by the applicant to comply with the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2022. Neither applicant nor his family members contacted the victim's family members till date.

¶25

The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶26

After going through the order dated 13.10.2022, I find that interim bail for period of six months was granted to the applicant subject to condition that in failure to comply with the aforesaid order, the interim bail for the period of six months granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith. Since the said order dated 13.10.2022 has not been complied with, therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to extend the interim bail order dated 13.10.2022 and has no option left except to reject the instant bail application.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶28

The applicant shall surrender forthwith before the concerned Court below, failing which, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶29

However, liberty is open to the applicant to move second bail application after surrendering before the concerned Court below.

¶30

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

¶31

Order Date :- 2.5.2023/Kashifa

¶32

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Karan Peter Masih v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Peter Masih v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home

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

Sangam Lal Bind Vs State of U.P.

Patil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Alias Bittu Vs State of U.P.

Sahaj Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Dharmpal Vs State of U.P.

Chhatrapal Vs State of U.P.