Allowed

Farukh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023BAIL/41439/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Judge allowed bail for an applicant accused of abetting his wife's suicide and dowry harassment. The court noted the applicant was a first-time offender, claimed no harassment intent, and emphasized the distress of the three children born in wedlock awaiting his return, relieving him of a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial court with specific conditions imposed.

Farukh Vs State of U.P. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185224

¶2

Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41439 of 2023 Applicant :- Farukh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶3

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.89 of 2023 at Police Station-Hajratpur, District-Budaun under Sections 306, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant is in jail since 07.07.2023.

¶4

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 02.08.2023.

¶5

The following arguments made by Shri Mayank Maurya, 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:

¶6

The applicant is the husband of the deceased.

¶7

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

¶8

The applicant is bereaved by the death of his wife.

¶9

The applicant was married to the deceased for the past 12 years. Three children namely, Farah aged about 9 years, Subhas and Farhan aged about two years, were born in the wedlock.

¶10

The applicant resided at Delhi where he sold fruits for a living.

¶11

The deceased was a temperamental lady, who was depressed because of prolonged separation from her husband. She wanted to reside with him. The applicant expressed his inability to take the deceased and the children to Delhi because of financial constraints and non availability of accommodation at his workplace.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(i). Nature of ligature marks.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

The applicant did not abet or instigate the deceased to

¶19

commit suicide.

¶20

The prerequisites for attracting the presumption and reversing the burden of proof are not established in the evidences and fact and circumstances of the case.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Let the applicant- Farukh 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:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 25.9.2023/Ashish Tripathi

¶28

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

Farukh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farukh 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

Arshad Vs State of U.P.

Atul Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar @ Satpal Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Vs State of U.P.

Vakeel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shah Mohammad Vs State of U.P.