Dismissed

Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC29 May 2024BAIL/1208/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the applicant sought release based on hostile witnesses and evidence of suicide. The court dismissed the application as not pressed, while granting liberty to approach the appropriate court.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed with liberty to apply to the appropriate court for interim bail.

Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40962

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1208 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Prakash Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Dheerendra Singh,Ajey Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Angad Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This is the second bail application by the applicant/accused in FIR No.0393 of 2020, under Section 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich. The first bail application was rejected by means of the order dated 12.05.2022 in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. - 7937 of 2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the five witnesses of fact have been examined, who are close relatives of the deceased i.e. father, brother and sister and they have turned hostile. The applicant is also in jail since 18.12.2020. The witnesses of fact, whose evidence have been placed on record, have admitted that the deceased had died on account of committing suicide and at that time, the applicant was not at the scene of crime and he had come subsequently. Therefore, the submission is that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State, opposing the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the aforesaid witnesses have stated that the father, mother and brother of the applicant were in Bahraich where their house was being constructed but nothing has been said about the applicant and the applicant is claiming that he was at his sister's place at the time of accident and there is contradiction in the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, whose statements have been placed on record. He also submitted that there are two ante mortem injuries in the post mortem, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant after arguing at some length submits that the application may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to move the bail application before the

¶11

appropriate court, which may consider the same in accordance with law considering the evidence adduced.

¶12

To the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant, there is no objection by the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

In view of the above, the application is dismissed as not pressed with the liberty as prayed for.

¶14

If any application is moved within a period of two weeks from today, the appropriate court may consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶15

Order Date :- 29.5.2024 Raj

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Verma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaya Prasad Yadav (Deceased) Thru. (Ram Sumer and Another) and Others Vs Ram Bux (Deceased) Thru. (Ishvar Deen and 2 Others)

M/S Ekta Enterprises, Thru. Its Proprietor, Sh. Abhimanyu Chowdhary, and Another vs Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Limited, Thru. Its Managing Director

Omveer Singh and Another vs Sufiyan and 3 Others

Mohd. Firoz Vs the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Mandal Office No. 1 and 5 Others

Ram Kewal Vs Mahadev and Ors.

Mahrani Deen Vs Shiv Lal and Others