Allowed

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023BAIL/40562/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed bail application for Suraj Kumar accused under Sections 498-A IPC, 306 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Court noted deceased committed suicide and granted bail imposing standard conditions including appearance before trial court and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions of appearance and non-tampering.

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179465

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40562 of 2023

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A contends that no instructions have been forthcoming from the police authorities.

¶7

Liberty of citizens is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by apathy of the police officials. There is no cause for failing to provide instructions to the learned Government Advocate despite advance notice of the bail application.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Firozabad shall take appropriate action against the erring police officials for failing to send appropriate instructions to the learned Additional Government Advocate despite advance notice of bail application and violating the directions of this Court in Sahil Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19839 of 2021) as well as in Aditya Dubey alias Sachin Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17969 of 2022) and the consequential orders passed by the Director General of Police, Government of U.P, Lucknow.

¶9

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 277 of 2023 at Police Station-South, District-Firozabad under Section 498-A, 306 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant is in jail since 08.06.2023.

¶10

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 13.07.2023.

¶11

The following arguments made by Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶12

The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant and the victim were married for eight years.

¶13

Two children were born in the wedlock. Prince, the son of the applicant and the deceased is aged about 5 years and their daughter Kanak is about three years of age.

¶14

The applicant never harassed the deceased nor did he demand dowry.

¶15

The deceased was a temperamental lady who became adamant to separate from the joint family and set up a nuclear family. The applicant showed his inability to do so as he had to look after his aging

¶16

parents.

¶17

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

¶18

The post mortem report opines that the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.

¶19

Injuries depicted in the post mortem report consistent with hanging are:

¶20

(i). Nature of ligature mark.

¶21

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

¶22

The applicant did not abet or instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

¶23

The children of the applicant and deceased are bereft of their father's love and guidance on account of the imprisonment of the applicant and have been denied the affection and nurturing of their mother after the death of the deceased.

¶24

The prerequisite for attracting the presumption and reversing of the burden of proof are not established in the facts and circumstances and evidence of the case.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶28

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

¶29

Let the applicant- Suraj Kumar 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:-

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Order Date :- 18.9.2023 Vandit

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Ansar Ali Vs State of U.P.

Beeru Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jalawati Vs State of U.P. and Another