Allowed¶20

Sunni v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2023BAIL/3357/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed under S.439 CrPC; accused Sunni (husband of deceased) in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021, P.S. Daurala, District Meerut; charges under sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act; PW-1 and PW-2 hostile; custody since 23.07.2021, no criminal history; release on personal bond with two heavy sureties; conditions incl. S.82 CrPC proclamation, S.174-A IPC and S.229-A IPC consequences, presence at charge framing and S.313 Cr.P.C. statement; decided 17.3.2023.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Sunni enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021 on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court. ¶20

Sunni Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Sunni enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021 on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sunni, arraigned in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021 under sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, should be enlarged on bail during trial under Section 439 CrPC.

¶6

Court's answer

On an overall view of the facts and circumstances, the nature of evidence, and the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, the Court held that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: no tampering with prosecution evidence or harassment of the victim/complainant; attendance on every date; an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; no misuse of liberty (failing which proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 174-A IPC may follow); and personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) allowed a Section 439 CrPC bail application by Sunni, husband of the deceased, arraigned in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021, P.S. Daurala, District Meerut, under sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act. Prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 and 2 (informant and Chachi of the deceased) had not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile; the applicant was in custody since 23.07.2021 with no criminal history. Finding no convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with evidence, the Court enlarged him on bail on a personal bond with two heavy sureties, imposing conditions including non-tampering, regular attendance, an undertaking against adjournments when witnesses are present, and personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement; misuse of bail liberty could invite proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 174-A IPC.

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3357 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sunni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sunni, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 228 of 2021, under section 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Daurala, District Meerut.

¶7

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is husband of the deceased. The prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 and 2 who are informant and Chachi of the deceased have not support the prosecution version and become hostile. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.07.2021 having no criminal history.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of

¶10

tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Sunni, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶12

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

¶13

ii) The applicant 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶15

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶16

(V) The applicant 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 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 17.3.2023

¶22

RPD

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunni v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunni 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Bijnesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hirdesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Baliram Kharwar @ Balli Vs State of U.P.

Omi Alias Omprakash Vs State of U.P. and Another