Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2024/885/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused in a dowry death case (asphyxia due to antemortem hanging), in custody since June 2021 with no criminal history; PW-1 admitted no direct dowry demand and two major witnesses were examined. Bail granted on conditions against tampering or intimidating witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, and attendance

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:733

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 885 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Sonu Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Chauhan,Alok Kumar Singh,Neeraj Trivedi,Ravi Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abdul Alim Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. PW-1 Prema Devi in her statement before the Court has admitted the fact that the applicant has never demanded dowry from her directly. Cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.06.2021 without having any criminal history. Two major fact witnesses have already been examined.

¶8

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no other criminal history.

¶10

On due consideration to the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant; postmortem report as well as statement of PW1 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Sonu Kumar, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 278/2021, under Sections 498A/304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Sandila, District - Hardoi, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.1.2024 R.C.

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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.

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

Ishityaqk @ Manne Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ram Tiwari Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.