Allowed

Ramsanehi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2023BAIL/38686/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant charged under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The Court acknowledged allegations of illicit relations and dowry harassment but found them credible solely based on the applicant’s lack of history and absence of prior disclosures. It emphasized the right to speedy trial and overcrowding, granting bail subject to strict cond

What did the court decide?

Releasement on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions on attendance, no tampering with witnesses, and avoiding adjournments.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177291

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38686 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramsanehi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List of fresh cases have been revised.

¶7

Today lawyers are on strike. The liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed because lawyers are abstaining from Court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A informs that notice has been served on informant but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶9

Heard learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

¶10

There is allegation in the FIR that the husband of the deceased and son of the applicant was having illicit relation with another woman for last 3-4 years when he had three children born from the deceased.

¶11

It appears that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he had no role in the illicit relationship of his son with another woman. The allegation of harassment and demand of dowry does not appears to be credible since the marriage of the couple took place in the year 2009 and thereafter there is nothing on record to indicate that any complaint regarding demand of dowry was lodged against the applicant. He is in jail since 16.06.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶12

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding

¶14

conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

¶15

Let the applicant, Ramsanehi, involved in Case Crime No. 119 of 2023, under Sections- 498-A, 306 IPC, Police StationSirsakalar, District- Jalaun, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(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 bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(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 sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and

¶21

proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 13.9.2023 Rohit

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramsanehi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsanehi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teejuram Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Raj Kumar @ Raj Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dheerendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Prajapati @ Arun Vs State of U.P.