Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6815 of 2021

Applicant :- Om Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel, for the applicant as well as Sri Anand Sagar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Om Prakash with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 188 of 2019 under Section 498A, 304 B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, DistrictBanda, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report is based on false and fabricated facts. The incident is said to be taken place on 6/7.12.2019 however the F.I.R. has been lodged on 16.12.2019 without any explanation. The applicant is the husband of the deceased who has been in jail since 18.1.2020 i.e. for more than three years and till now evidence of other witnesses could not be recorded. The applicant himself had taken the deceased to the hospital where she was declared brought dead. As per the post-mortem report, no other injury except ligature mark was found on the person of the deceased which shows deceased was not tortured with regard to fulfilment of demand of dowry. No report/complaint was ever made by the informant regarding demand of dowry prior to the date of incident. In the inquest proceeding, mother, uncle and fufa of the deceased had participated but no one has raised any objection regarding demand of dowry or cruelty. Even if for the sake of argument, the allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- is accepted even then there was no ocassion to cause dowry death. Therefore, the accused/ applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Lastly, it has been submitted that the accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 18.1.2020, who has no previous criminal history and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not

¶9

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 present case.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the accused/ applicant is named in the first information report, who has done his wife to death due to demand of dowry. The accused/ applicant is husband of the deceased, who has a higher degree of responsibility towards safety and well being of the deceased, his wife. The deceased has died in her matrimonial house within seven years of her marriage with the accused/applicant. Therefore, the accused/ applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail in any manner.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions and the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The bail application is, thus, allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Om Prakash 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:-

¶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

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;

¶17

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

¶18

the witnesses are present in court;

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.3.2023 S.Verma

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek @ Viran Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rinku Vs State of Up

Abhishek Vaid Vs State of U.P.