Allowed

Shanker @ Ghanshyam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2023BAIL/51087/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad entertained a bail application by Shanker @ Ghanshyam, alleged to have been falsely implicated in a dowry death case involving Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The applicant, a father-in-law of the deceased, claimed innocence and asserted that allegations were general. The court granted bail, imposing strict conditions regarding tampering, appearance, and securing a procla

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties, subject to specified undertakings regarding court attendance and non-tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225907

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51087 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shanker @ Ghanshyam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against the applicant and his other family members with the allegation that he had solemnize marriage of his daughter with the son of the applicant about one and half years ago, at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given but in-laws of her daughter were not satisfied with the same and used to make demand of additional dowry in the form of a motorcycle and one lakh rupees in cash, and ultimately on 17.06.2023 his daughter has been murdered by hanging by her in-laws. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of complainant and his wife recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. general and omnibus allegations have been made against all the accused persons and no specific allegation has been made against them. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on the person of the deceased apart from ligature mark, there are three other injuries being contused swelling which could not have attributed to the death of the deceased and cause of death is asphyxia as a result of hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that mother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Asha, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40929 of 2023 and the case of applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, Asha. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false

¶8

implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 25.06.2023, having no criminal history.

¶9

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 deserve any indulgence.

¶10

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all 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, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view, that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let applicant- Shanker @ Ghanshyam, involved in Case Crime No. 92 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Parsamalik, District Maharajganj, be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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

¶16

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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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 in accordance with law.

¶19

The bail application is allowed .

¶20

Order Date :- 30.11.2023 Mustaqeem.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shanker @ Ghanshyam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanker @ Ghanshyam 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

Rampal @ Munna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anas Vs State of U.P.

Soni Vs State of U.P.

Prempal Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.