Allowed

Pankaj Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024BAIL/3089/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held, the criminal miscellaneous bail application was allowed. The Single Judge found it a fit case for granting bail under the cited Supreme Court precedent, noting the applicant's lack of antecedents and the hostile stance of key prosecution witnesses, while imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Pankaj Gupta was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80904

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3089 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Verma,Kavita Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶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 the applicant having no criminal history is languishing in jail since 27.09.2023. Three prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court. PW-2 and 3 have been declared hostile. He further submits that except the ligature mark, there is no antemortem injury on the body of the deceased. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶10

It has been further submitted that by making general allegations

¶11

six family members of the applicant have falsely been implicated. There is no specific statement of the prosecution witnesses as to when the demand of dowry was made or cruelty was committed upon the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that perusal of the site plan shows that the deceased committed suicide in her room on the second floor. It is further submitted that the information of the incident was given by the applicant to his in laws. 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.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the victim has died within three months of the marriage.

¶13

On due consideration to the fact that three fact witnesses including the complainant have been examined before the trial court; except the ligature mark, there is no antemortem injury on the body of the deceased, the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.09.2023 without having any criminal antecedent and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) 9 SCC 813 , without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant, Pankaj 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Renu/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Keshav Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shatrohan @ Shatrughan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sandeep Kumar Verma Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others