Allowed

Amit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2024/13870/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High CourtACLEA bench allowed bail to an applicant in a dowry death case where the deceased committed suicide. The court noted the applicant had been in jail over a year with no trial conclusion in sight and granted bail subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court appearance and non-abuse of liberty.

Amit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33201

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13870 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amit

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No.22 of 2023, under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Neemgaon, District Kheri Lakhimpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was married with the deceased four years prior to the date of incident. There was no complaint lodged by the deceased and her family members regarding dowry demand or harassment except the present case. He further submits that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself and there is one injury i.e. ligature mark, which is present on the neck of the deceased and the same has been caused due to ante-mortem hanging. The cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. He also submits that one minor abraded contusion of 2 x 1 cm over front of left mid leg, which could have been caused while the body of the deceased taken down on the ground.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased did not want to live with the applicant after marriage and there was always altercation between the applicant and the deceased, that is why she committed suicide. He further submits

¶11

that in a similar case, Pankaj Kumar Sahu, who is husband, filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7428 of 2021 before this Court and the same was rejected vide order dated 25.02.2022, against which he filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3486 of 2022 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.07.2022 released the said applicant on bail. The order passed in the aforesaid case is quoted below:-

¶12

"1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh and perused the material available on record, including the counter affidavit filed by the State.

¶13

Taking into consideration the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is reported to have suffered incarceration for over 1 year 4 months and there is no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, which fact could not be controverted by the learned counsel appearing for the State, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶14

The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released on bail, subject to such terms & conditions which the Trial Court shall deed fit and find appropriate to impose upon him.

¶15

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the afore-stated terms.

¶16

pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of."

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that in the aforesaid case, the ground of incarceration of one year and four months has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. He further submits that there is no likelihood that the trial is concluding in near future as even the trial court has not started. There is no criminal history against the applicant and he has been in jail since 02.02.2023.

¶18

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the applicant and his family members demanded motorcycle and additional dowry, that is why the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Therefore, the applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case; the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself; general allegation of dowry demand has been levelled against the applicant; applicant has been in jail for the last one year and three months and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Let applicant, Amit be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶21

(i) 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.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iii) 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.

¶24

(iv) 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

¶25

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.

¶26

It is made clear that observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will, in no way, be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶27

¶28

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶29

Order Date :- 27.4.2024 Rao/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Haarun vs Union of India (D.R.I)

Kalam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shabanam Alias Shabanam Begum vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Sandeep Alias Chandan Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Manjeet Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another