Allowed

Maniram Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024BAIL/152/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for an accused in a dowry death case. The court relied on the deceased living separately, lack of specific details in witness statements, and absence of criminal antecedents, despite opposition from the State.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions against tampering and ensuring court appearance.

Maniram Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4749

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 152 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Maniram Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jaskaran Lal Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

In the FIR, it is alleged that the daughter of the informant Mahi Gupta (deceased) was married to one Pankaj Gupta son of the present applicant on 03.05.2022 according to Hindu Rights and Rituals. After the marriage, one Bullet Motorcycle and Rs.50000/- cash was demanded by the named accused persons. The daughter of the informant told on telephone regarding demand of dowry, upon that the informant went to the place of her daughter and settled the matter. It has been further alleged that the deceased was three months' pregnant and the son-in-law of the informant as well as father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased were not willing to born the child and they were pressuring the deceased for the abortion. On 24.09.2023 at 10:20 AM, he received information that the deceased has died. When the informant reached there, he saw that the deceased suffered antemortem injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except the ligature mark, there is no antemortem injury on the person of the deceased. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶10

It has been further submitted that general allegation have been levelled on six accused persons. The entire family members of the applicant have been falsely implicated. Attention of the Court has been invited towards the statements of the prosecution witnesses who have levelled general allegation for demand of dowry. They have not given any specific details regarding time or the date when such demand was made. Statements of the independent witnesses namely Daulat Ram and Rati Ram shows that house of Pankaj Gupta husband of the

¶11

deceased was partitioned and he was living separately along with his family.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that perusal of the site plan which is on record further shows that the deceased committed suicide in her room on the second floor.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.09.2023 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.

¶14

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

¶15

On due consideration to the submissions advanced as well as perusal of the record and considering the statement of Rati Ram and Daulat Ram, it appears that the deceased was living separately from her in-laws and other family members and considering the general nature of allegations; age of the applicant and the fact that he is languishing in jail since 27.09.2023 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.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant, Maniram Gupta, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 625/2023, under Sections 498A/304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Mohammadi, District Kheri, 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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

¶21

evidence.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 R.C.

¶26

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

Maniram Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniram Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. 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.