Allowed

Satish Chandra Katiyar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2024/2401/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed challenging the rejection of bail applications for appellants in a case involving dowry harassment and suicide. The High Court considered arguments regarding residence, cause of death, and Supreme Court precedents concerning pre-arrest bail. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellants released on bail on furnishing personal bond and relative sureties subject to additional conditions.

Satish Chandra Katiyar and Another Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69502

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2401 of 2024 Appellant :- Satish Chandra Katiyar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shivam Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Randhir Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant-complainant and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 4955 of 2024 (Satish Chandra Katiyar vs. State of U.P.) and Bail Application No. 4962 of 2024 (Sushma Katiyar vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 173 of 2024 under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 of D.P.Act & Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Para, District-Lucknow.

¶7

While pressing the present appeal seeking bail, it is stated that from a perusal of the FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2, registered as FIR No. 0173 of 2024 dated 08.04.2024, it is apparent that based upon general allegations regarding committing cruelty against the deceased on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry, entire family of the husband of the deceased has been implicated.

¶8

It is further stated that opposite party No. 2 lodged the FIR against Devesh Kumar (husband of the deceased) as also against the appellants, father-in-law, mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased, Diksha (Jethani of the deceased), Murari (Jeth of the deceased), Pragati (sister-in-law of the deceased), Himanshu Katiyar (brother-in-law of the deceased).

¶9

It is also stated that the deceased and Devesh Kumar (husband of the deceased), son of the appellants, were in love affair and they solemnized the marriage on 08.12.2023 and in this marriage ceremony all the family members of the deceased as also husband of the deceased were present.

¶10

It is stated that the deceased alongwith her husband (Devesh

¶11

Kumar) was residing at Hans Khera Colony, P.S.-Para, DistrictLucknow.

¶12

Also stated that the appellants were residing at Village-Jagatpur, P.O.-Bangarmau, District-Unnao at the time of marriage as also at the time of alleged incident as indicated in the FIR. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the various documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure No. SA1 to SA-6 viz. ID's Card of the appellants, Electricity Bill, Address Proof, Photocopy of the cheque book of appellant No. 2, Photocopy of the LIC agent of appellant No. 1 and copy of the joining letter of appellant No.2 as Anganwadi worker.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the informant-complainant as also learned counsel for the State submitted that appellants used to visit the place of incident i.e. place at which deceased alongwith her husband was residing. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer annexed as Annexure No. CA-5 to CA-7 to the counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the informantcomplainant as also Annexure No. CA-2 and CA-3 to the counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the State.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that from the post-mortem report, it appears that some altercation took place between the deceased and her husband and on account of the same, the deceased ultimately committed suicide as cause of death is shown in the post-mortem report is Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.

¶15

In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment(s) passed in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 ; Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. as also learned counsel for the informantcomplainant vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellants' counsel.

¶17

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer.

¶18

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances as also the fact that at the time of alleged incident the appellants were residing at Village-Jagatpur, P.O.-Bangarmau, DistrictUnnao and post-mortem report, as per which, the cause of death is Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and also the allegations levelled in the FIR and the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶19

The impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 4955 of 2024 (Satish Chandra Katiyar vs. State of U.P.) and Bail Application No. 4962 of 2024 (Sushma Katiyar vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 173 of 2024 under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 of D.P.Act & Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Para, District-Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

¶20

Let the appellant Satish Chandra Katiyar and Sushma Katiyar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶21

(i) The appellants will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶22

(ii) The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶23

(iii) The appellants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶24

(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence.

¶25

(v) The appellants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

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

¶27

(vii) The appellants will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶28

(viii) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the

¶29

trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶30

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶31

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶32

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 Vinay/-

¶33

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

Satish Chandra Katiyar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chandra Katiyar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Haseena Begum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Viresh Singh @ Viresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ramvir Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Priyanka Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Munna Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Smt. Shilpa Devi Thru. Mr. Pankaj Kumar vs Siya Ram and Another