Allowed

Vineet Kumar @ Anuj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024BAIL/1611/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail sought under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with the Dowry Prohibition Act in a case of death by asphyxia due to antemortem hanging within three years of marriage. The brother of the deceased testified as PW-1 but did not support the prosecution. The court noted over one year's custody, no prior criminal record, and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties to satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions.

Vineet Kumar @ Anuj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83789

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1611 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vineet Kumar @ Anuj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kanaujia,Rahul Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Vineet Kumar @ Anuj for grant of bail in Case Crime No.0520 of 2023, under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with section 3/4 D.P. Act lodged at police station Phardhan, district Lakhimpur Kheri, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and, he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. The applicant is the husband of the deceased who had died other than in normal circumstances after three yeas of her marriage with the applicant, however, the applicant has neither treated the deceased with cruelty nor has raised any dowry demanded and all the allegations, in this regard, are false and concocted and could not be believed.

¶9

It is further submitted that falsity of the case of prosecution is itself evident by the fact that prosecution witnesses, namely, Ankush Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased, has been testified before the trial court as PW-1 and he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has denied the statement recorded under section 161 CrPC. He has further stated that the written application (FIR) was given by him under the pressure of his mother. It is further submitted that having regard to the pace with which the trial is travelling before the trial court, the same is not going to conclude in near future.

¶10

It is next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 13.11.2023 and he is not having any previous criminal record. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the

¶12

applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail for the last more than one year and only one prosecution witness, namely, Ankush Kumar has been testified before the trial court as PW-1 and he has not supported the case of the prosecution and also considering the fact that the death of the deceased has been assessed due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and also having an eye on the fact that the applicant is not having any previous criminal record, a case of bail is emerging in favour of the applicant.

¶14

Thus, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the accused/applicant- Vineet Kumar @ Anuj involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 MVS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vineet Kumar @ Anuj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar @ Anuj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Rinki Devi Thru. Her Father Mahesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Gokaran Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. the Pein. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Bhoopendr Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 5 Ors.

Smt. Shalini Thru. Her Husband Sandip Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

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