Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023BAIL/8852/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court considered allegations of dowry death and suicide due to prohibited relationship. Noting jail overcrowding and lack of early trial conclusion, the Court granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions regarding attendance, non-tampering with evidence, and other standard bail cond

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139195

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8852 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of his wife by way of hanging.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the victim was cousin (mama's daughter) of applicant and she was married to the applicant forcibly. Their relationship was of prohibited degree as per Hindu Law.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the deceased committed suicide because of mis-adjustment in her matrimonial home. The applicant is in jail since 04.06.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. Before the trial Court, seven out of 15 prosecution witnesses have been examined. There is no possibility of early conclusion of trial.

¶10

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; 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., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail

¶12

application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Sonu, involved in Case Crime No. 194 of 2020, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Rura, District- Kanpur Dehat, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(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 him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶22

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.7.2023 Rohit

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shahid Vs State of U.P.

Nityanand Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P.