Allowed

Guddu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2023BAIL/41689/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Guddu, father-in-law of the deceased, in a matrimonial case involving sections 498A, 304B IPC. The husband was already in custody causing investigation difficulties. The Court allowed bail subject to conditions ensuring no tampering with evidence or harassment of the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding evidence tampering and trial attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196780

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41689 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Babu Verma,Anita Singh,Kumari Poonam Rajpoot,Nirmla Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Ms. Anita Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi submits that he has filed his vakalatnama in the office on 26.9.2023. The same is not on record. Office to trace it out and place it on the record and make a note about it in the order sheet.

¶9

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Guddu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 56 of 2023, S.T. No. 1924 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Pinahat, District Agra.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. It is argued that marriage of Kalpana the sister of the informant with Arun the son of the applicant was solemnized on 17.2.2022. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. It is argued that the husband of the deceased has been arrested and is in jail. It is further argued that the deceased committed suicide and died and cause of death of the deceased as opined by the doctor is asphyxia due to ante mortem injury. The deceased was found to have received ligature mark all around neck except 13 cm back of the neck. Further abrasion was also found on the body of the deceased. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only being the family member of the husband of the deceased. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 9.5.2023.

¶11

Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the

¶12

first informant opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is father-inlaw of the deceased. Cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem injury. The husband is in jail. Except a single ligature mark on the neck and one abrasion no other injury was found on the body of the deceased.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant-Guddu, 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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶20

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and

¶22

try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed.

¶25

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Naresh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Guddu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu 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

Satendra Gaud Vs State of U.P.

Riyaz Khan@ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.and Another

Chirag Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bharat Vs State of U.P.

Ratan Singh @ Rinku Vs State of U.P.