Allowed

Parmendra Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/166/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowing a bail petition in a dowry death case where the applicant lacks criminal antecedents, prosecution witnesses failed to substantiate specific dowry demands, and seven family members were exonerated. Bail granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions against tampering and absconding.

Parmendra Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1033

¶2

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 166 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Parmendra Bajpai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Nisha Srivastava,Mukesh Kumar Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Shankar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that general and sweeping allegations have been levelled in the FIR against the applicant and his family members. All the family members of the applicant, total ten in number, have been implicated. During the investigation, the allegations made in the FIR are found false and therefore, seven persons were exonerated. No specific allegation regarding the demand of dowry on a particular date or time has been given by the prosecution witnesses. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. PW-1 has been examined before the Court and in his statement he has stated that during the marriage, no dowry was demanded. During the marriage no dowry was fixed and whatever was given by him was happily accepted. PW-1 has not supported the prosecution case. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 04.06.2022.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application submitting that the deceased died within one year of marriage in unnatural circumstances relating to payment of dowry and cruelty committed upon the deceased.

¶11

On due consideration to the statement of the prosecution witnesses; PW-1 has been examined; the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.06.2022 without having any criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the

¶12

applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Parmendra Bajpai, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 170/2022, under Sections 498A/304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Ram Sanehi Ghat, District - Barabanki, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

(vi) 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 R.C.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Parmendra Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmendra Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil 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

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

Veeru Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. I.O. and 3 Others

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Angad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.