Mahendra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194060

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28747 of 2023

Applicant :- Mahendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Naresh Chandra Tripahti,Suchita Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Naresh Chandra Tripahti, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This is second bail application of the applicants. The first bail application of the applicants was rejected by Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J. (as he was then) vide order dated 02.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13582 of 2022 (Mahendra And Another vs. State of U.P.).

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants- Mahendra and Begwati , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are the father-inlaw and mother-in-law of the deceased Aarti. They havebeen falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the marriage of Aarti was solemnized with Sonu the son of the applicants on 27.11.2020. It is further argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicants and all the accused persons. The deceased committed suicide which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report, wherein, the deceased has received a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is argued that co-accused Sonu @ Sohan the husband of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30573 of 2023 (Sonu @ Sohan vs. State of U.P.), the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. Learned counsel argued that trial in the present matter has started in which P.W.-1 Kela Devi the first informant and P.W.-2 Jogendra the brother of the deceased were examined who have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is argued that looking to the fact that Sonu @ Sohan the husband of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further that the first informant P.W.-1 and Jogendra P.W.-2 the brother of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile, the applicants being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased be granted bail. It is argued that the applicant no.2 is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section

¶10

437 Cr.P.C. The applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and are in jail since 09.12.2021.

¶11

Per contra , learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicants and other accused persons in the first information report. The cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Sonu @ Sohan the husband of the deceased has been granted bail.

¶13

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicants- Mahendra and Begwati , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

i) The applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

ii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶19

(v) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 9.10.2023 AS Rathore

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Alias Saeed Vs State of U.P.

Vikesh @ Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Naeem Vs State of U.P.