Allowed

Jaiveer Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2023BAIL/44066/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while not expressing an opinion on the merits of the dowry death case, allowed the bail application. The court considered the delay in FIR, uncertainty of the investigation, and jail overcrowding in light of the Satendra Kumar Antil judgment.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Jaiveer Kumar was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding appearance in court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:232467

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44066 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jaiveer Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Kant Yadav,Satyendra Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of his wife.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first information report has been lodged after three months of the incident. The cause of death of the deceased was not ascertained. Later Alprazolam has been found in her viscera report. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased consumed some medicine without understanding its effect and died. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case after three months of the incident. He is in jail since 14.05.2023.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Jaiveer Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.1044 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 304-B I.P.C and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District- Ghaziabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶19

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.12.2023 SS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jaiveer Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiveer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaukin Vs State of U.P.

Tutu Vs State of U.P.

Ramchander @ Chandraz and Another Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Najar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Aman Khan Vs State of U.P.