Allowed

Amit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2024BAIL/1250/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1250/2024, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed bail to the applicant in a dowry death case. The court relied on the absence of other antemortem injuries, the applicant's clean record, and the general nature of FIR allegations to grant relief pending trial on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties by imposing conditions on tampering with evidence and attending trials.

Amit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12732

¶2

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1250 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶5

It is alleged in the FIR that sister of the informant was married with the accused-applicant on 17.06.2022 according to Hindu Rights and Rituals with adequate dowry. After few days of the marriage, the named accused persons demanded additional dowry in form of motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- cash and due to less payment of dowry, his sister was subjected to cruelty, both physical and mental. One day the deceased heard the applicant talking to some other girl and upon inquiry being made by her, she was beaten. Due to this atrocity, she has committed suicide on 18.10.2023.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during investigation, the allegations made by the informant that the applicant was talking to some other girl has not been found substantiated. It was the applicant who informed the in-laws about the incident which is evident from the statement of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. General and sweeping allegations have been levelled regarding demand of dowry without giving any date and time. The allegations levelled in the FIR are not in the close proximity of the death of the deceased. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Except the ligature mark, there is no other antemortem injury on the body of the deceased.

¶7

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2023 without having any criminal antecedent. 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.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

On due consideration to the fact that except the ligature mark, there is no other antemortem injury and it was the applicant

¶10

who informed the in-laws; general and sweeping nature of allegations have been levelled while lodging the FIR, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2023 without having any criminal antecedent 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, Amit Singh, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 736/2023, under Sections 304B/498A IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali City, 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 :- 12.2.2024/R.C.

¶20

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

Amit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Mo. Firoz Khan @ Firoz Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Gobind Chandra Patra (as in the Fir ) (Gobind Chandra Patra as in the Adhar ) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neeraj Yadav vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Kishori Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

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

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