Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37667

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4532 of 2024

Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kanaujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

As per the learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 19.12.2023 in FIR/Case Crime No. 219 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Padua, DistrictLakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which shows that for the alleged incident took place on 06.12.2023 and the impugned FIR has been lodged on 08.12.2023. The aforesaid FIR has been lodged after consultation with other family members. The entire family has been implicated in the impugned FIR and general allegation of demand of dowry and torture has been levelled against all.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the relation of the applicant with his wife (deceased) was so cordial and they were happily living as husband and wife. He has never demanded dowry from her or her family members. The present applicant is absolutely unaware as to why his wife has committed suicide. As per post-mortem report, there is no antemortem injury except one ligature around the neck area which might be caused due to hanging as the cause of death is hanging.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the parents of the present applicant have already been granted bail by the learned court below. The information regarding the death of his wife has been given by the present applicant to his in-laws and on such information, they came to the place of the

¶12

present applicant. Before the death, the victim complained for severe stomach pain, then the applicant took her to Vedanta Diagnostic Centre for ultrasound. He was taking care of her properly. He has further submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever as recital to this effect has given in Para 26 of the bail application, which is undisputed. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall participate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Without entering into the merits of the case; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of F.I.R.; the fact that there is about two days' delay in lodging the FIR and the impugned FIR has been lodged after consultation with other family members; the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging; the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; undertaking of the applicant that he shall abide by all conditions of the bail order and cooperate in the trial court proceedings, I find it appropriate to release the present applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let applicant- Suraj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶17

(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.

¶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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A 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 the applicant fails to appear before the

¶20

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

(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.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.5.2024 Shravan

¶24

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶25

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

Suraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Makhija @ Nishu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Shebu @ Jaglar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Parvez vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Bhure @ Rizwan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Mohd. Zaid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.