Allowed

Abhishek Kumar @ Arun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Home Deptt Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt Lko.

Allahabad HC10 May 2024/3248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under Sections 323, 498A, 304B IPC and D.P. Act arising from the suicide of the applicant's wife, the High Court held that the applicant was falsely implicated and entitled to bail. The application was allowed with specific conditions regarding attendance, conduct, and prohibition of inducement or tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, tampering, and late filing of evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Abhishek Kumar @ Arun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36228

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3248 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar @ Arun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Home Deptt Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Romit Seth,Mukesh Dhar Dwivedi,Sushmita Mishra,Vikas Verma,Vinay Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This is second bail application filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 330 of 2021, under Sections 323, 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

The first bail application was rejected on 29.08.2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant on 18.05.2019 and later on, she started insisting the applicant to live with her maternal uncle in relation to her employment, but the applicant was keen to live with her widow mother for taking her care. As a result, the daughter of the informant committed suicide due to annoyance. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the information about the incident was given by the applicant to the police, which fact is also mentioned in the inquest report. The applicant was also present at the time of inquest. However, the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of concocted fact. It is also submitted that the cause of death is asphyxia due to anti mortem hanging. She next submits that as the charge sheet has been filed, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is lastly submitted that till today the charge has not been framed

¶11

and in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial. It is, thus, submitted that the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 29.06.2021. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the wife of the applicant died within seven years of marriage. However, he does not dispute the fact that information about her death was given to the police by the applicant. He also concedes the fact that the applicant is in jail since 29.06.2021.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of F.I.R., bail application, inquest report as well as other relevant documents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Application stands allowed.

¶15

Let applicant -Abhishek Kumar @ Arun be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 330 of 2021, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(ii) 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 ofÏce or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial

¶19

court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(iv) 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 IPC.

¶21

(v) 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. may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶22

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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.

¶23

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶24

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.5.2024 VKS

¶26

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

Abhishek Kumar @ Arun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Home Deptt Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Kumar @ Arun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Home Deptt Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt 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

M/S Moon Pharma Lko. Thru. Its Proprietor Sri Awanish Tiwari Vs Sri. C.L. Verma Chief Medical Officer, District Mirzapur

Pradeepta Verma Vs Sri Surendra Tiwari, Secy. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad

Ishrat Jahan Vs Sri Abhishek Yadav, Tehsildar, Tehsil Tiloi, Amethi

Irshad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt Vidya Sonkar Vs Sri Sunil Kumar and Others

Parashu Ram Singh Vs J.S.Sandhu V.C. Narendra Dev University Faizabad and Anr.