Allowed

Harshit Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024/1561/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Sections 498A and 304B IPC was allowed. The court expressed no opinion on the merits, noting the co-accused mother-in-law had already been granted bail for similar allegations, leading to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding attendance and non-abuse of liberty.

Harshit Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46309

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1561 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Harshit Bhardwaj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dayal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Case is taken through video conferencing.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.136 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow.

¶9

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that father of the deceased lodged an FIR, making allegation that her daughter was harassed by the applicant and his mother and he got information that her daughter died due to hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and no internal or external injuries were found on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark on the neck which was caused due to hanging. He also submitted that the postmortem report also indicates that the deceased died due to antimortem hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that prior to the incident,no FIR was ever lodged by the deceased or her family members against the applicant and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased was short tempered woman and on the date of incident she locked herself in a room and committed suicide. He has also submitted that mother-inlaw/ Smt. Aruna Bhardwaj has been granted bail by this

¶10

Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13798 of 2023 and the allegation of the applicant is same as levelled against mother-in-law. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 10.07.2023.

¶11

5. Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail and as submitted that it is case of dowry death. He has submitted that the marriage had taken placed in the year 2021 and the deceased died within the short span of time after her marriage as such the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶12

6. Learned A.G.A. has also adopted the same arguments as argued by Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶13

7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that the co-accused mother-in-law having similar allegation has already granted bail by this Court and the argument that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and no external or internal injuries were found on the person of the deceased except ligature marks on the neck which has been caused due to hanging, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

8. The bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶15

9. Let applicant, namely, Harshit Bhardwaj, 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 :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶18

In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 dk/

¶24

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

Harshit Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshit Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

Suraj @ Kallu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Smt Shamim Begum vs State of Up and 2 Others

Salman Raza and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Rakesh Alias Rajesh Alias Mahant Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Ravi Tiwari @ Veer Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

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