Allowed

Doctor Prashant Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2024BAIL/10303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application allowed. Court granted bail to the applicant (a doctor) accused of dowry death, noting lack of specific material suggesting immediate harm before death. Bail granted subject to personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Order of release on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each, with conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offences, and not tamper with evidence.

Doctor Prashant Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:67022

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10303 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Doctor Prashant Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Faizal Hashmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhanshu Shekhar Tripathi and Sri Nadeem Murtaza who appear for the informant as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No.254 of 2024 under sections 85/80(2)/324(4) BNS and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the niece of the informant was a doctor and married to the applicant who is also a doctor. It was stated that the applicant had allegedly killed the niece of the informant. It was further stated that at the time of marriage, the entire amount was spent by the family of the informant and no amounts were spent by the family of the applicant. It was also stated that sufficient dowry was also given and on various occasions, the applicant used to demand the dowry and they used to harass her. It was also stated that her mobile phone was broken, however, the victim tolerated and stayed with the informant to save her marriage. Subsequently, an information was received that the niece has been killed. Other allegations of, the applicant's family taking her to hospital were also levelled. The FIR was filed against as many as five persons who are the family members of the applicant.

¶9

In the light of the said, the counsel for the applicant argues that the co-accused who is the mother-in-law was enlarged on bail vide order dated 19.09.2024 mainly considering the age of the applicant. The counsel for the applicant further draws my attention to the various amounts that were allegedly transferred by the applicant to his own wife. She also draws my attention to the postmortem report wherein the cause of death was antemortem hanging and apart from ligature mark, one contused swelling over the chest on right para sternal region and three ribs were also found to be fractured. She further argues that once, the cause of death is ante-mortem hanging, prima-facie apart from the allegations, there is no materiel to suggest that the applicant had harassed the victim soon before her death

¶10

either physically or mentally in relation to demand of dowry. She further argues that both, the applicant and the victim were doctors having a reasonable practice and the applicant is a doctor in the government department. It is lastly argues that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 15.08.2024 may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

The counsel for the informant Sri Nadeem Murtaza strongly opposes the bail application by arguing that the bail should not be granted till the conclusion of the investigation. He further argues that the applicant, being a doctor, is in a position to influence and has already influence the medical authorities in submitting a prima-facie wrong postmortem report and, if the applicant is enlarged on bail at this stage, he may influence the trial further. In the light of the said, it is proposed to be argued that the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶12

Learned AGA also adopts the arguments of the counsel for the informant and opposes the bail application. He further argues that the there is no explanation with regard to the CPR given and despite being doctor and reside in the CHC, the applicant had taken her to a different hospital.

¶13

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie, as per the FIR, the applicant and the victim both were doctors and were married around two years' ago and, it appears that they were not having any cordial terms, the FIR has been lodged against the entire family members, which in itself, denotes that the proceedings have been initiated without substantial material against the entire matrimonial family, which is also the stand in the case, the postmortem report, irrespective of its veracity at this stage cannot be doubted and can be discredited only at the time of trial.

¶14

Considering the postmortem report and there being nothing specific against the applicant that soon before her death, the applicant had subjected the victim physically or mentally in relation to demand of dowry, a case for bail is made particularly when the applicant is not at a flight risk and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail can adversely affect the trial. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Doctor Prashant Kumar Singh be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.9.2024 VNP/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Doctor Prashant Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doctor Prashant Kumar Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suhail Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Gullu @ Vijay Bahadur Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

M/S Raj Exports Thru. Proprietor Mr. Raj Kumar(Borrower) and Another vs Capri Global Capital Ltd. Mumbai Having Branch Office,New Delhi Thru. Authorised Officer and 2 Ors.

Shivsewak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Mobin Adees vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko