Allowed

Vijay Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2023BAIL/43207/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by the father-in-law and mother-in-law of a deceased person accused under Section 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC. The court noted the absence of material indicating evidence tampering, despite the murder commission. Bail was granted on a personal bond with sureties and specific undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each with conditions to appear in court and not delay trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:205528

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43207 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Singh Visen,Prashant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Aman Singh Visen, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants Vijay Kumar and Geeta Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 100 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Khanpur, District Ghazipur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Suman. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Sabhajeet the son of the applicants on 28.02.2020 through court marriage. It is argued that the general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicants. It is argued in the postmortem report a single injury being a ligature mark has been found on the body of the deceased and the doctor has opined the cause of death due to antimortem hanging. Sabhajeet the husband of the deceased is in jail. It is argued that the applicant no.2/Geeta Devi is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicants and as such there are no chances of the applicants tampering with evidence. He further argued that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit and are in jail since 22.07.2023.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicants are named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against them.

¶11

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging. No other bodily injury has been found on the body of the deceased except for a ligature mark. Sabhajeet the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶12

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 applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicants Vijay Kumar and Geeta Devi , 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

ii) The applicants 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.

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(v) The applicants 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 applicants are 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

¶19

proceed against them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

¶21

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 applicants to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 28.10.2023 M. ARIF

¶24

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar and Another 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

Brahmpal Vs State of U.P.

Manish Devi Vs State of U.P.

Kushagra Singh Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Zafar Usmani Vs State of U.P.

Bhola Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.