Allowed

Sachin @ Surendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2023BAIL/39978/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant, Sachin @ Surendra, who was in jail for cheating and forgery. The Court appointed amicus curiae as the applicant did not appear. Based on the amicus curiae’s arguments that the charge under the DP Act was based on a dispute where no criminal fraud was proven, the bail was granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

Sachin @ Surendra Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177635

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39978 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sachin @ Surendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramdhan,Ameet Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Matter is called out. None appears for the applicant to press the bail application. The names of the learned counsel for the applicant are shown in the cause list. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶7

Learned counsel at the Bar has been requested to assist the Court in the matter. This Court in the light of the holding in Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18536 of 2020 is not dismissing the case for non prosecution. Learned members at the Bar have volunteered to assist the Court pro bono in the highest tradition of the profession. The Court has appointed learned counsel as amicus curiae.

¶8

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.559 of 2022 at Police Station-Akrabad, District-Aligarh under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The applicant is in jail since 31.07.2023.

¶9

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 28.08.2023.

¶10

The following arguments made by learned amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶11

The applicant is the brother-in-law of the deceased.

¶12

The applicant never tortured the deceased nor did he demand dowry. The applicant never interfered in the marital life of the deceased and her husband.

¶13

The deceased was a sensitive lady who was depressed due to prolong separation from her husband.

¶14

The husband of the deceased was working in Panjab in search of livelihood. The deceased wanted to go with him and the husband of the deceased could not accede to her wishes because of financial constraints and non availability of accommodation at his workplace.

¶15

On the fateful day, in a fit of rage the deceased succumbed to depression and took the extreme step of ending her life. She committed suicide by hanging.

¶16

The postmortem report opines the cause of death as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.

¶17

Injuries depicted in the postmortem report consistent with hanging are:

¶18

(i) Ligature mark was present around the neck. Base of

¶19

groove is brown. Parchment like subcutaneous tissue underneath ligature mark is white hard and glinting.

¶20

(ii). The hyoid bone was intact.

¶21

The applicant did not aid or abet the suicide.

¶22

The records available with the learned A.G.A. disclose that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶23

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶24

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant-Sachin @ Surendra 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶27

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

¶28

The Court has been informed that the lawyers in districtAligarh are striking work. Liberty of citizens is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by striking lawyers.

¶29

The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Aligarh shall ensure that appropriate legal aid is made available to the applicant for purposes of submitting sureties and completion of other formalities for being set forth at liberty.

¶30

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Aligarh for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in the manner stated above.

¶31

Order Date :- 13.9.2023 Ashish Tripathi

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin @ Surendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin @ Surendra 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

Pintu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajinder Saini Vs State of U.P.

Nanhey @ Amit Vs State of U.P.

Varasat Ali Vs State of U.P.

Vijaymal Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P.