Allowed

Vineet Mishra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2024/1433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench allowed the applicant's application for enlargement on bail in a charge sheet case involving dowry death and cruelty. The court was satisfied that without specific statements linking the applicant to dowry demands, the bail conditions should be granted.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence or commit similar offences.

Vineet Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33202

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1433 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vineet Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Mishra,Vishnu Dev Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Vineet Kumar Pandey, who has filed Vakalatmama on behalf of the complainant and perused the record. The Vakalatnama is also taken on record.

¶8

3 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in ST No.2692 of 2023 arising out of FIR No.7 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

¶9

4 . This is the second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13520 of 2023.

¶10

5 . While arguing the second bail application, the Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant had married to the deceased in a temple and it was the second marriage of the applicant as well as the deceased. The marriage was solemnized on 08.10.2021 and subsequently, the victim died on 28.12.2022. As per the FIR, the demands of dowry were being made and certain amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid through Paytm. The deceased was killed by administering poison.

¶11

6 . In the light of the aforesaid allegations, the Counsel for the applicant further argues that as per the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence, viscera preserved. No other injury was seen on the body of the deceased. Subsequently, as per the FSL report, chlorpyrifos insecticide was found in the viscera, which was also the cause of death. The Counsel for the applicant further argues that the marriage was solemnized in a temple, hence, there is no question of any dowry being taken. The applicant has suffered

¶12

pretrial detention since 15.04.2023 as only one of the witness has been examined so far.

¶13

7 . The Counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer by arguing that specific assertion with regard to the payment of Rs.20,000/- through Paytm was made in the FIR. He further argues that while applying bail before the trial court, the stand of the applicant was that certain amount was found in a vehicle scrap, which was paid and now here different stand was taken by the applicant and thus, he argues that the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶14

8. Learned A.G.A. also vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶15

9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima facie, the cause of death is poisoning as ascertained in the viscera; there are no injury seen on the body of the deceased; there is no specific statement against the applicant to suggest that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to any physical or mental harassment in relation to any demand of dowry coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 15.04.2023 and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

10. Let the applicant Vineet Mishra be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶18

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶19

(c) 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.4.2024 akverma

¶21

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

Vineet Mishra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Mishra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Vimal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P.

Maulana Ashfaq Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Ajay Sipahi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Harilal Pal Vs Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Lko. Zonal Unit Lko.

Adesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Kashif Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.