Allowed

Hari Ram @ Hari Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024BAIL/149/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, father-in-law of the deceased, in a dowry death case. The court relied on the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused had been released on bail by a coordinate bench, and considered the applicant's lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Hari Ram @ Hari Lal on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions regarding trial conduct and witness tampering.

Hari Ram @ Hari Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4002

¶2

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 149 of 2024 Applicant :- Hari Ram @ Hari Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Chauhan 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

As per version of the F.I.R., marriage of deceased Rinki was solemnized with Amiraka (the applicant herein) three years prior to the incident. The family of the deceased gave enough dowry in the marriage, however, the accused persons i.e. her husband, his real brothers and parents were not satisfied and were demanding a motorcycle in dowry. The deceased used to be threatened and that they have been committing physical atrocities because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In the intervening night on 17/18.03.2023, she was murdered and hanged. She was pregnant at that time.

¶6

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that inquest was conduced in presence of the relatives of the deceased and no allegation was levelled at that time. FIR has been lodged after consultation. Death is due to hanging. Except the ligature mark, there is no other injury on the body of the deceased. The applicant being father-in-law of the decease has been falsely implicated.

¶7

It has been further submitted that the co-accused Amiraka who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.11.2023 passed in bail No. 10726 of 2023. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused.

¶8

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.10.2023 without having any criminal history 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 A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute that it is a case of parity.

¶10

On due consideration to the fact that the co-accused Amiraka (husband of the deceased) has been enlarged on bail, so also the

¶11

fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.10.2023 without having any criminal history 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, on the ground of parity

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Hari Ram @ Hari Lal, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 86/2023, under Sections 498A/304-B/504/506 IPC, Police Station - Khairi Ghat, District - Bahraich, 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.1.2024/R.C.

¶21

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

Hari Ram @ Hari Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram @ Hari Lal 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

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Mohd. Sohel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Aamir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Sonu Hussain Alias Bakridi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.