Allowed

Mahipal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2023BAIL/51406/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant, father-in-law of the deceased in a case involving dowry death allegations. The court found no material indicating tampering with evidence, considering the general nature of allegations and the husband's arrest.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions regarding presence in court, no adjournment during evidence, and no tampering with evidence.

Mahipal Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:232159

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51406 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mahipal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Sharan Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Mohit Sharan Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, 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 applicant Mahipal seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 438 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. It is argued that marriage of the deceased Nishu with Mohit the son of the applicant was solemnized on 08.5.2023. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. It is argued that the husband of the deceased has been arrested and is in jail. It is further argued that the deceased committed suicide and died which is consistent with the post mortem examination report which shows a single ligature mark on her body and cause of death of the deceased as opined by the doctor is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only being the family member of the husband of the deceased. It is argued that the applicant is an old man aged about 60 years and has no criminal history and is in jail since 20.8.2023, para-18 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. While placing para-19 and 20 of the affidavit it is argued that the charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and the co-accused Mohit (husband of the deceased) and as such there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence or not co-operating in the investigation.

¶10

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

¶11

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. Husband is in jail. Cause of death of the deceased as opined by the doctor is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and except single ligature mark no other bodily injury was found on her body. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused Mohit (husband of the deceased).

¶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 applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Mahipal, 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 applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 7.12.2023 Naresh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahipal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal 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

Piyush Shukla Urf Prakalp Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Gulfam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vipul Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Vs State of U.P.

Kanha @ Jayprakash Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Vs State of U.P.