Allowed

Harshit @ Sheru v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P., Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024BAIL/2043/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed in a case involving the death of a married daughter due to dowry demands. Prosecution witnesses failed to appear, applicant's alibi regarding his absence from the crime scene was not contested, and he had no prior criminal history. Released on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and providing two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each with conditions to attend hearings, avoid similar offences, and not tamper with evidence.

Harshit @ Sheru vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27441

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2043 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Harshit @ Sheru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Of U.P., Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0182 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Madhoganj, District - Hardoi.

¶9

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant on 28.04.2022 and sufficient dowry was also given. However, on account of demand of dowry, on the night of 5/6.05.2023, the daughter of the informant was killed. It was also stated that brother of the deceased was at the matrimonial home, to inform about the death. In the light of the said allegation, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was ante mortem head injuries and as many as nine injuries were shown on the body of the deceased. He further argues that in Paragraph-17, it has been specifically stated that at the time of alleged incident, the applicant, who is the rickshaw driver was not at home and he left for his auto rickshaw driving work at 9 PM. The said assertion has not been controverted in the counter affidavit filed by the State. It is further argued that the informants are not coming for deposition as is evident from the ordersheet of the trial court filed on record along with the rejoinder affidavit which demonstrates that despite repeated adjournment, the prosecutions witnesses are not coming forward.

¶10

Learned AGA vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

Considering the non-cooperation of the prosecution in the

¶12

trial, coupled with the fact that applicant has no criminal history, and the assertion made in Paragaraph-17 has not been controverted, the applicant, who is in custody since 08.05.2023, is enlarged on bail. Thus the bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Harshit @ Sheru be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(c) 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

Order Date :- 3.4.2024 KR

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harshit @ Sheru v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P., Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshit @ Sheru v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P., Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lucknow

Dheeraj Pandey Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Virendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Mohsin Raza Vs State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sadhna Bajpai Vs State of U.P., Thru. Prin. the Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrtt. Lko.

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