Allowed

Ranveer v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023BAIL/56663/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court allowed the second bail application in a dowry death case involving IPC 498-A and 304-B. The court cited jail overcrowding and hostile prosecution witnesses, granting bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and strict conditions against tampering or seeking adjournments. Directions were issued for expediting the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to verified conditions, and directed trial within six months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56663 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ranveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Safiullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ranveer, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 618 of 2018 (S.T. No. 152 of 2022) (Old S.T. No. 530 of 2019), under Sections 498-A,304-B IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Chandausi, DistrictSambhal, during pendency of trial.

¶7

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.4.2022, which is not available.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of this wife.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that six prosecution witnesses have been examined. The four witnesses of fact have turned hostile.The applicant is in jail since 4.2.2019 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

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; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in

¶11

the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; 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 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

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat

¶19

such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶22

Order Date :- 28.1.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶23

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

Ranveer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranveer 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

Dhanpal Vs State of U.P.

Haripal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gajendra Vs State of U.P.

Istekar Vs State of U.P.

Salma Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others