Allowed

Baburam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023BAIL/58063/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 306 IPC, the Allahabad High Court, per Jumala J., held that a case for bail is made out due to FIR delay, lack of prima facie evidence of torture, and the applicant's lack of criminal history, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant, Babu Ram, was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to six conditions including cooperation with the trial and no tampering with witnesses.

Baburam Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58063 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Babu Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A has filed counter affidavit today in Court on behalf of the State, which is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Babu Ram, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 194 of 2022 under Section 306, Police Station Shahjadnagar, District Rampur, during pendency of the trial before the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report is based on false and fabricated facts. The accused/applicant is innocent who has been falsely implicated in this case, there is undue delay in lodging the F.I.R. The alleged occurrence has taken place after seven years of marriage. The victim has voluntarily committed suicide without any abetement. The applicant has not tortured the victim physically or mentally. He is in jail since 03.10.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that there is no criminal history of the applicant, no likelihood of tampering the evidence or absconding of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 03.10.2022, and has no previous criminal history. His further submission is that in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicant will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the

¶10

present case.

¶11

Contrary to that learned A.G.A argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R, there is unnatural death in the house of the accused, for which no explanation has been given by the applicant. The victim has supported the prosecution version in her statement, hence the bail application be rejected.

¶12

Perused the file and as per F.I.R the marriage between the applicant and the deceased had been solemnized about ten years ago. There is no iota of evidence such as complaint, F.I.R or any fact regarding complaint or F.I.R before the death of the deceased regarding demand of dowry or torture by the accused. There was no internal or external injury on the person of the deceased except ligature mark. There is no prima-facie evidence that soon before the death the deceased was physically or mentally tortured. There is undue delay of six days in lodging the F.I.R and just after death of the deceased, the respondent-informant had informed the concerned police station in writing that his sister (deceased) has committed suicide being angry in absence of the husband, this fact has also been brought before the court that at the time of incident, the accused was not present on the place of occurrence. There is a son of two and half years' old, who has to be looked after by the accused.

¶13

Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the nature of offence, evidence regarding the complicity of applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The bail application is, thus, allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Babu Ram , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat

¶19

or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, in case the witnesses are present in court;

¶21

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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

It is made clear that the trial of the aforesaid case shall be conducted without being influenced by any observation made herein above which are confined to the disposal of the instant application for bail.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.4.2023 Vinod..

¶25

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

Baburam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil Suneja Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Ram Barai Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manju Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh @ Karpage Vs State of U.P.

Mahmood Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others