Allowed

Imran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024/14771/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued bail to the applicant in a murder and dowry death case. Granting bail despite expressing no opinion on the merits, the court relied on the failure of key relatives to support the prosecution case and imposed conditions for appearing in court.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific undertakings regarding court attendance.

Imran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64412

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14771 of 2023 Applicant :- Imran 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.

¶4

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary afÏdavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Imran with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.119 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Boundi, District Bahraich.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that general allegations of dowry demand have been levelled against the applicant. He further contented that PW1mother of the deceased has not supported the prosecution case and she deposed before the court in cross examination dated 22.5.2024 that her daughter has not given any complaint to police regarding any kind of atrocity and there was good relation between her daughter and husband. She further deposed that she did not die because of harassment by the applicant and his family rather she died out of unnatural calamity. She had lodged report on the behest of the people of her area.

¶9

Learned counsel has further invited attention of this Court towards the statement of PW2-Grandfather of the deceased who has also not supported the prosecution case and deposed before the court in cross examination that there was no alleged demand of dowry on the applicant's side. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the statement of mother and grandfather of the deceased, at this moment, it cannot be inferred in any manner that the applicant is involved in the said crime. Both the witnesses PW1-mother and PW2-grandfather have not supported the prosecution case in their cross examination, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 08.05.2022.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not

¶11

dispute the fact that PW1 and PW2 have not supported the prosecution case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that both PW1 and PW2 i.e mother and grand-father of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case in cross examination ; argument that general allegation of dowry demand, I am of the of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant, Imran 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 :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶18

It is made clear that the 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 conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.9.2024/Pks

¶20

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Imran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tahir Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Alka Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Anil Kant Gupta @ Anil Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Lala Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ashutosh Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Virendra Kumar Yadav Alias Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko