Allowed

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2023BAIL/57302/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application concerning a dowry death charge, the court released the applicant on bail citing jail overcrowding and Article 21 considerations, without adjudging innocence on merits, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Releases the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57302 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Yadav,Abhilasha Singh,Shyam Lal

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narayan Singh(Kushwaha)

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

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. 220 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jaithra, District- Etah, during pendency of trial.

¶8

The FIR has been lodged against five named accused persons including the applicant regarding causing dowry death of his daughter-in-law in the FIR.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are general allegations against all the accused persons regarding demanding of dowry. Nothing has been stated in the FIR as to what was demanded by them. The cause of death of the deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-motem hanging. The abrasions found on the body of the deceased were four days old. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She has no criminal history to her credit and is languishing in jail since 27.07.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. Similarly situated co-accused Machchia Devi, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1935 of 2023, copy of which order has been produced before this Court and is taken on record. It is thus contended that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by

¶11

contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, 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. & 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- Mukesh involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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 her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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 her in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 2.3.2023

¶21

S.Ali

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI 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

Udham Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajveer Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anikesh @ Ankesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anoop Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Alias Shushank Bajpei Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Saxena Vs State of U.P.