Allowed

Veerpal v. State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up Lucknow

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023BAIL/45831/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused in a murder and acid attack case. Noting discrepancies between the FIR alleging acid throwing and the victim's statement describing milk pouring, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions including not tampering with evidence, appearing in court, and not seeking adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by personal bond and two sureties on specific conditions including attending court dates.

Veerpal Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207589

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45831 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Veerpal Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov Of Up Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Ajendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel 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 applicant Veerpal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 402 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 326-A, 307, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Sikandra Rao, District Hathras.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 06.07.2023 under Sections 498-A, 326-A, 307, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act by Shyambabu against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that his daughter Suneeta was married around 8 years back with Deepak the son of the applicant. The accused persons used to torture and harass his daughter for dowry in which a motorcycle was demanded. In the meantime, four children were born but the accused persons used to assault his daughter for the same. On 15.07.2023 at about 11:00 pm Suneeta was assaulted and the accused persons poured acid on her due to which she got extensively burnt. She was taken to hospital wherein she was being treated. She was found 80 percent burnt.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the father-in-law of the victim. It is argued that the prosecution as per the FIR is totally false and incorrect. It is argued

¶11

that Suneeta gave a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she states that milk mixed with something was poured on her by her father-in-law, jeth and her husband. It is argued that in so far as the statement of the victim is concerned, the same in no manner states of any acid being thrown on her. The medical examination report states of her getting burnt by hot milk poured on her. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 12 of the affidavit and is in jail since 17.07.2023.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the FIR states of acid being thrown on the victim whereas her statement and the medical examination of the victim shows that she got burnt from milk. The applicant is the father-in-law of the victim Suneeta.

¶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 Veerpal , 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

¶20

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.

¶21

(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 229-A IPC.

¶22

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

Order Date :- 31.10.2023 M. ARIF/e-file

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶27

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

Veerpal v. State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerpal v. State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up Lucknow

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

Nitin Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manish Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Teajo @ Teajpal Vs State of U.P.

Aladeen Ahmad Alias Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Shamshul Vs State of U.P.