Allowed

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/644/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to Surendra Kumar in a dowry death case. The court noted the applicant was not named in the FIR, had no criminal history, and was living separately at the time of the incident, finding it a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties in the sum of fine to trial court satisfaction.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:562

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 644 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Jalaj Kumar Gupta,Mohd Javed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.176 of 2022, under Sections 498A/304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mehmoodabad, District Sitapur.

¶8

As per the allegation in the F.I.R., daughter of the informant was married with applicant. In-laws of the deceased used to harass the deceased. It is alleged that applicant also used to abuse. On 25.04.2022 at 09:30 am, the deceased called her on mobile and told that in-laws are beating her. After some time she got to know that the deceased has been done to death by coaccused Anuj who is brother-in-law of the applicant along with the daughter of Daya Ram and Daya Ram. The deceased was pregnant.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is the husband and has no criminal antecedent. He submits that although he is husband but no allegation of demand of dowry or beating has been levelled against him in the F.I.R. and that is why he is not named in the F.I.R. Deceased died due to hanging. Applicant was residing in Gurugram at the relevant point of time . The R.T.I. information depicting his attendance at Gurugram is on record. Cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 27.04.2022. Applicant was living separately from the deceased at the time of incident. The complicity of the applicant is not found from perusal of the prosecution case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of

¶12

the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2022, applicant has no criminal history as also the fact that applicant has not been named in the F.I.R., without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Surendra Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

(vi) 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

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

Veeru Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. I.O. and 3 Others

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Parmendra Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

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

Surenrda Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko.