Allowed

Amarjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2024BAIL/3973/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by the husband accused under Sections 498A/304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in his wife's death. Court noted no specific allegation against him, court marriage, only a ligature mark on the body, no criminal history, and parity with the bailed co-accused father-in-law.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to imposed conditions.

Amarjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30938

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3973 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amarjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Dileep Pandey on behalf of complainant 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 First Information Report it is alleged that the daughter of the informant married with the applicant on 23.2.2021 via court marriage. Thereafter, the ceremonial marriage was conducted according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. In the marriage enough dowry was given, however, in-laws of the deceased were demanding motorcycle, fridge and gold chain. The informant somehow managed and gave gold chain, however, could not give motorcycle and fridge. Due to that the deceased was being beaten. On 12.11.2023 at about 5.00 p.m. the fact of physical cruelty and beating was told by her to her mother but due to festival the informant could not go to his daughter's place. In the same night the accused persons have murdered the deceased.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the husband of the deceased and in the F.I.R. specific role of demand of dowry is assigned only to the father-in-law Shrinath who has granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2024

¶10

passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2348 of 2024. He submits that his case is on better footing than that of co-accused Shrinath, he seeks parity with the bail order of Shrinath.

¶11

He further submits that as per the F.I.R., it was a court marriage done on 23.02.2021 and there is no question of demand of dowry. The information of death has been given by the in-laws to the parents of the deceased. Except ligature mark, no ante mortem injury has been found on the body of the deceased. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2023 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer.

¶13

On due consideration to the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2023 having no criminal history, no specific allegation on the present applicant in the prosecution case as well as the fact that it was a court marriage; co-accused Shrinath has been granted bail and except ligature mark there is no other injury on the body of the deceased 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.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant, Amarjeet , involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 343/2023, under Sections 498A/304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Mohanganj, District - Amethi, 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

¶17

trial.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.4.2024

¶24

Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

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

Amarjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Rajendra Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Umashankar Yadav @ Bander Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Nagina Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Jumman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mukesh Jain Alias Baua Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another