Allowed

Amar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2023BAIL/40148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Amar Singh, a government servant accused under IPC Sections 498-A and 304-B and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Relying on its earlier decision in Maneesh Pathak, the Court noted that the amicus curiae could not be refuted by the prosecution, and granted bail with conditions despite ongoing lawyer strikes in the district.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant released on bail surrendering a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and ensuring trial attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178027

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40148 of 2023 Applicant :- Amar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Srijan Mehrotra,Anil Kumar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Matter is called out. None appears for the applicant to press the bail application. The names of the learned counsel for the applicant is shown in the cause list.

¶6

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.

¶7

By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 0150 of 2023 at Police Station- Obra, District- Sonbhadra under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant is in jail since 29.07.2023.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 16.08.2023.

¶9

The following arguments made by amicus curiae on behalf

¶10

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 a government servant and brother-inlaw of the deceased.

¶12

The applicant never demanded dowry nor did he harass the victim.

¶13

The applicant did not interfere in the marital life of the victim and her husband. The applicant is bereaved by the death of his sister in law.

¶14

The applicant resides separately from the victim and her husband.

¶15

The deceased was a temperamental lady, who was depressed on account of failure to conceive a child despite prolonged treatment for infertility.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Injuries depicted in the postmortem report consistent with hanging are:

¶19

(i). Ligature mark present over upper part of neck. Parchment like skin breast on section.

¶20

(ii). No abnormality was detected in the hyoid bone.

¶21

The applicant has been nominated only to extort money from him.

¶22

The applicant did not aid or abet the suicide.

¶23

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶24

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Let the applicant- Amar Singh 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:-

¶28

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

¶29

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the

¶30

date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶31

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

¶32

The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Sonbhadra 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.

¶33

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Sonbhadra for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in all legal formalities for being set forth at liberty as stated above.

¶34

Order Date :- 14.9.2023 Pravin

¶35

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh 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

Dalchandra Vs State of U.P.

Siddhant @ Aashu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajkumar Kevat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramjatan Bind Vs State of U.P.

Manthlal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another