Allowed

Preetam Singh@ Pintoo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023BAIL/3833/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application allowed. The Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail in a dowry death prosecution under Sections 498A IPC and 306 IPC, based on the plea of false implication, though the trial court's opinion remains independent.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to standard conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearance in court.

Preetam Singh@ Pintoo Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3833 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Preetam Singh@ Pintoo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pathak,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.395 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 306 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased person, was married to her as per Hindu Rites on 20.11.2013. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have subjected the deceased person to cruelty for demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and a car, thereby they are stated to have slaughtered her to death on 30.04.2022. An FIR was lodged at the police station on 05.05.2022 allaying the same allegations under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC alongwith Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The inquest report was prepared the very next day on 01.05.2022 and there is not a single whisper against any of the accused persons. Learned counsel has further stated that the informant is a panch witness to the said inquest proceedings alongwith his son Titu. The said FIR has be lodged after much deliberations and consultation. Learned counsel has further stated that even this FIR does not match with the autopsy report whereby the cause of death has been found to be hanging. Learned counsel has further stated that later on the prosecution story has taken a turn and the case has been transformed of the deceased having committed suicide as is evident from the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the same day of lodging of the FIR. Learned counsel has further stated that even the said statement

¶10

does not indicate about any allegation of abatement or instigation on the part of the applicant. It has plainly been stated that the applicant and his family members used to torment the deceased person because of her not been able to bear a child. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.06.2022 In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Preetam Singh@ Pintoo involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

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

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

¶20

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

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Ravi Kant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Preetam Singh@ Pintoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preetam Singh@ Pintoo 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

Shakib Vs State of U.P.

Sultan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhanmati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepay @ Deepchandra Vs State of U.P.