Allowed

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2023BAIL/46246/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for dowry death charges under IPC 304-B and 498-A, the High Court granted bail citing overcrowding and the mandate of Article 21. The bail was subject to strict conditions prohibiting tampering, adjournment seeking, and ensuring attendance for trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering, attendance, and specific court appearances.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:230125

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46246 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash Chaube

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Om Prakash Chaube, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mukesh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 135 of 2023, under Sections 304-B, 4698-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Aunchha, District- Mainpuri, during pendency of trial.

¶9

There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of his daughter-in-law.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the deceased was living in the village, while the applicant alongwith his son, Sandeep, the husband of the deceased, were living at Noida and doing private job. The deceased used to come to Noida. She came to Noida to celebrate her minor daughter's birthday. She did not wanted to return back in village because her mother-in-law was suffering sever disease. She was a short tempered lady. The deceased committed suicide since she did not wanted to go village to look after her motherin-law. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 13.6.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view 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; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I.

¶13

& Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 5.12.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Deep Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faizan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sultan Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Meera Devi Vs State of U.P.

Muneesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhure Vs State of U.P.