Allowed

Nikhil Bharti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023BAIL/59444/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Allahabad High Court, considering the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of evidence proving essential ingredients of the offence, allowed the applicant's prayer for bail during the pendency of the trial under specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties subject to conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Nikhil Bharti Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59444 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nikhil Bharti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

2.As per prosecution version, the marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the deceased nine years back from the date of lodging of the F.I.R. After the marriage, the applicant used to harass physically and mentally in a drunken state, due to which, several times, compromise had taken place but the behaviour of the applicant did not change. There was quarrel between them since 03.10.2022 to 04.10.2022, in the late night, she was found in a dead state.

¶7

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is the husband. The incident alleged to have taken place on 04.10.2022 whereas, F.I.R. has been lodged on 17.10.2022 without there being any plausible explanation of sch an inordinate delay of 14 days. Learned counsel next argued that there has to be clear mens rea to commit an offence and there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide but in the present case, perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., clearly shows that there is no essential ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. He next submits that prior to the incident, the deceased went to her parental

¶8

house and when she returned to her matrimonial house, she was under depression, which resulted into commission of suicide. It is thus contended that no offence has been committed by the applicant and therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 18.10.2022 having no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶10

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Nikhil Bharti involved in Case Crime No. 154 of 2022 under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following

¶12

conditions:-

¶13

A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected.

¶17

E. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.2.2023 S.Ali

¶20

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

Nikhil Bharti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Bharti 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

Suresh Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Govardhan Rajak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P.

Aman @ Ramu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yaseen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others