Allowed

Suraj @ Viprendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024/9241/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a dowry death case. The court noted that fact witnesses had been examined, no new demand for dowry was alleged, and the applicant had been in custody for over 3.5 years.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000 each, subject to attendance and non-interference conditions.

Suraj @ Viprendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69766

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9241 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj @ Viprendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Amjad Siddiqui,Mohemmed Amir Naqvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

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

¶8

2 . This is the second bail application. The first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2024. While rejecting the first bail application, this Court had directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and record the statement of the remaining witnesses.

¶9

3 . While arguing the second bail application, the counsel for the applicant argues that all the fact witness have now been examined and none of them have stated that there was any demand of dowry. On the contrary P.W. 7 has stated that the marriage was done only in view of the property owned by the applicant, who is the husband.

¶10

4. A report was called by this Court, which has been furnished, wherein it was stated that none of the parties have produced the copy of the order dated 08.04.2024 and was received by the trial Court only from the High Court. It further records that the trial Court was on maternity leave from the 29.08.2024 upto 23.09.2024 and is likely resume duty on 24.09.2024. He lastly argues that the applicant is in custody since 04.05.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶11

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

¶12

6. Although the act alleged against the applicant is a gruesome act, which was also noticed in the earlier order dated 08.04.2024, however, from the report furnished, there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future. The pre trial detention suffered by the applicant is more than 3- 1/2 years and considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and the fact witnesses have already been examined and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

7. Let the applicant Suraj @ Viprendra be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 174 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(c) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 Arun

¶18

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

Suraj @ Viprendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj @ Viprendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.Thr.Senior Divisional Manager Vs Comm. and Secretary Board of Revenue U.P.Lko. and Ors.

M/S D.R Construction Ramnagar Road, Faizabad Thru. Its Partner Kaushal Kishore Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lucknow and 2 Others

M/S D.R Construction Ramnagar Road Faizabad Thru. Its Partner Kaushal Kishore Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Qadeer Ahmad @ Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui and Others Vs Shakeel Ahmad and Others

Digant Kumar Khandelwal and 3 Others Vs Sachin Khandelwal and 6 Others

Abdul Hayee and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Utraula, Distt. Balrampur and Others