Allowed

Suresh Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2023BAIL/57047/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J., allowed bail to Suresh Singh in a dowry-related death case involving Sections 498-A IPC, 304-B IPC, and D.P. Act. The court noted the applicant's age, health, and false implication allegations while imposing strict conditions to ensure trial participation without seeking adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to strict conditions.

Suresh Singh Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57047 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Bind

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.184 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Merapur, District Farrukhabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. Entire family members of the applicant has been roped in the present case. The applicant has never demanded for additional dowry as mentioned in the impugned FIR. Further contention is that applicant is old aged person about 75 years and suffering from several old disease and she was living separately from the deceased. Only general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. Further contention is that the applicant is an old and infirm and it is impossible for the applicant to strangulate a young lady. As per postmortem report, there is no mark of injury and the cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.09.2022 having no previous criminal history and that the co-accused mother-in-law namely, Shanti Devi, whose case is similar to the applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail

¶8

Application No. 57190 of 2022, copy of which order has been produced before this Court and is taken on record. It is thus contended that the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant-Suresh Singh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) 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 her in accordance with law.

¶16

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.1.2023

¶20

S.Ali

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suresh Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Singh 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

Lalta Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Dilnawaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaurav Mittal @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Kuldip Yadav @ Prince Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Yadav @ Bhusi Yadav Vs State of U.P.