Allowed

Ravi Alias Arun Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC8 May 2024BAIL/4878/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and D.P. Act. The court noted that the father of the deceased did not support the prosecution and emphasized the length of detention and potential for trial delays, granting bail with strict conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to file undertaking against adjournments and remain present at trial stages.

Ravi Alias Arun Kumar Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49757

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4878 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ravi Alias Arun Kumar Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhaker Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Case has been taken up through video conferencing.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajdeep Singh learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.162 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Thangaon, District Sitapur.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that PW1, father of deceased, has not supported the prosecution case. He deposed before the trial court that his daughter used to live happily in her matrimonial house and he had married his daughter without giving dowry. He further deposed that family members of the deceased never harassed or tortured her for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- cash, Refrigerator, Cooler etc. His daughter was mentally ill and used to leave house many times. He further deposed before the court that he married his daughter by concealing her mental illness. Lastly, he deposed that her daughter had drowned herself in the river after leaving her house on her own will. Counsel for the applicant further submits that after looking to the statement of PW-1, father of deceased, at the moment, it cannot be construed that the allegation of dowry demand is proved against the applicant and his family members. The applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 20.07.2023.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that father of deceased has not supported the prosecution case.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that PW-1 father of deceased has not supported the prosecution case; the argument that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future and many fact witnesses are to be examined which takes considerable time, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

The bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶13

Let applicant, namely, Ravi Alias Arun Kumar Dixit , be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) 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.

¶15

(ii) 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.

¶16

(iii) 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent

¶19

conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 I.A. Siddiqui

¶21

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravi Alias Arun Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Alias Arun Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

A.R. Enterprises Thru. Its Proprietor Saiyyad Nadeem Shahid Alias Nadeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Parashu Ram Rawat and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Aniruddh Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

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

Nitin Kishor @ Mohan and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Sangeeta Devi Vs State of U.P and Anr.