Allowed

Dharmendra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024/42/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a dowry death case where the deceased died by hanging with only a ligature mark on the body and only a general allegation of dowry demand was made. Court found the applicant entitled to bail without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Dharmendra Maurya released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance.

Dharmendra Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49767

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dharmendra Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary,K.K. Singh,Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Case has been taken up through video conferencing.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Singh learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.84 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shriduttganj, District Balrampur.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased committed suicide because she was mentally ill and used to take treatment at Mazar. He further submits that there is general allegation of demand of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and one motorcycle has been levelled by the father of the deceased, but no FIR was ever lodged prior to the present case. The postmortem report also indicates that there is no internal or external injury except the ligature mark, which was caused due to hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant has made the statement at Bar that co-accused Chhotu Maurya (father-in-law) has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11606 of 2023. The applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 09.06.2023.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of dowry death, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

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 deceased committed suicide by hanging and no other external or external injury was found on the body of the deceased and the argument that general allegation of dowry demand was made, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

The bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶13

Let applicant, namely, Dharmendra Maurya , be released on bail in the above case

¶14

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 :-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 I.A. Siddiqui

¶21

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Mohd. Riyaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

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

Arvind Verma vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Raja Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Ravi Alias Arun Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.