Allowed

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2024/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment converts interim anticipatory bail into absolute bail for the applicant in a decades-old dowry-death case where the informant is deceased and co-accused are on bail, imposing standard conditions to ensure compliance with the trial process.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. made absolute with conditions to appear, ensure interrogation, not tamper with evidence, and not leave India without permission.

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh,Apoorv Dev Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

By means of instant application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0299 of 1995, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act lodged at Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 26.08.1995 against three persons, including the applicant, stating that the applicant had got his grand-daughter married to the applicant; that all the accused persons used to harass her for demanding dowry and they tied her up, poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. She was admitted to the District Hospital at 06:00 PM and she died in the Hospital on 18.08.1995.

¶9

In the dying declaration of the victim recorded on 02.08.1995, she had put on the gas but she took some time for searching for the match box and as soon as she fired a match stick she caught fire. The applicant was present in the home at the time of the incident. Co-accused Anuj Kumar, who is the applicant's brother had poured water on the victim and applicant

¶10

got her admitted in the hospital. She did not levelled any allegations against the applicant or any other person.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal antecedents.

¶12

Both the other co-accused persons namely, Rajendra Kumar and Anuj Kumar have already been granted anticipatory bail.

¶13

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 08.1.2024 and notice was issued to the opposite party no.2. It has been reported that the informant had died 13 years ago and, therefore, notice could not be served to the informant.

¶14

The State has not filed any counter affidavit till date.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, there is not material to pursuade this Court to take a view different from the view taken at the time of passing of the order dated 08.1.2024 granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant is made absolute.

¶16

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶17

Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest/appearance of applicant- Sudhir Kumar before the learned Trial Court till the next date of listing, he shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing personal bail bond and two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed

¶18

by the Trial Court:-

¶19

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶20

(ii) that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶21

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶22

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶23

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶25

Order Date :- 10.4.2024/-Amit K-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Savita Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey @ Vinnu Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sonu Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 7 Others

Pradeep Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sukhbir Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Arya Cine Entertainment Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Rahul Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others