Allowed

Heera Sagar @ Sukhdev @ Kunthi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024/2215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) allowed the bail application of the accused, Heera Sagar, involved in a dowry death case under Section 304-B, 302 IPC. The court granted bail based on the presence of ligature marks and the suicide theory presented by the defense.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

Heera Sagar @ Sukhdev @ Kunthi Vs State of U.P Thru… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61210

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2215 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Heera Sagar @ Sukhdev @ Kunthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Dwivedi,Ajeet Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been filed seeking release of the accused/applicant Heera Sagar @ Sukhdev @ Kunthi on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0273 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 304-B, 504, 302/34 I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Harpalpur, District Hardoi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased was performed on 26.05.2021 and general allegation of dowry demand is levelled against the applicant for demanding a motorcycle and a golden chain.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the post-mortem report does not indicate any external or internal injury on the body of the deceased except for the ligature mark on the neck. He further submitted that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself because the financial condition of the applicant was poor and he could not meet out the day to day expenses of the family. He further submitted that there is no any complaint regarding dowry demand by the family members of the deceased.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the deceased have already been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14537 of 2023 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13417 of 2023 respectively.

¶12

Learned A.G.A for the State has opposed the prayer of bail of the applicant and has stated that it is a case of dowry death, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail and his bail is liable to be rejected.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel

¶14

for the parties, the argument that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and general allegation of dowry demand has been levelled against him, the argument that post-mortem report does not indicate any internal or external injury on the person of the deceased except for the ligature mark on the neck, the argument that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant Heera Sagar @ Sukhdev @ Kunthi be released on bail in the above case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶18

(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 her under Section 229A 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 if 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 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.

¶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

Order Date :- 4.9.2024/DiVYa

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heera Sagar @ Sukhdev @ Kunthi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heera Sagar @ Sukhdev @ Kunthi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Saxena and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Kailash vs State of U.P. Thru.the Addl. Secy. Home and 4 Others

Heera Sagar @ Sukhdev @ Kunthi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ibney Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Qayyum Ali @ Gopalu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko