Allowed

Manish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024BAIL/525/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a second bail application for Manish, accused in an attempt to commit suicide case. Despite previous rejection, the High Court granted bail noting that fact witnesses contradicted the prosecution, there is no risk of evidence tampering, and the applicant has no prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to furnishing a bond with two sureties on the conditions that he does not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or seek adjournments in absentia.

Manish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12336

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 525 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shahid Akhtar,Divya Prakash,Pankaj Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Divya Prakash

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Counter Affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 9.5.2022 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.5340 of 2021. The order passed by this Court is extracted below:-

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR No.107 of 2020 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Atariya, District Sitapur.

¶12

3. The accused-applicant was married to the decesaed-Mansi. The marriage allegedly took place 8 years before the date of incident. The accused-applicant used to assault the deceased and torture her. It is alleged that on the date of incident i.e. 02.04.2020, the deceased consumed poison and, as a result thereof, she died.

¶13

4. Post mortem report would disclose following ante mortem injuries noticed on the body of the deceased:-

¶14

"(i) Abraded contusion 3 cm x 1.5 cm present on right side of forehead 4.5 cm above right eye brow;

¶15

(ii) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm present on just below chin;

¶16

(iii) Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm present on tip of left shoulder joint; and

¶17

(iv) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm present on back of left elbow joint."

¶18

5. From the aforesaid fact, it appears that the deceased was brutally assaulted by the accused-applicant. Aggrieved and inrazed by torture and harassment in the hands of the husband, she committed suicide.

¶19

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, involvement of the accused-applicant in the commission of the offence, this Court does not consider it to be a fit case for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail at this stage. This bail application is thus, rejected. Trial Court should proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. ".

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the first bail was rejected, P.W.1, father and P.W.2, mother of the victim have been examined, who have not supported the prosecution case while being examined before the Court.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶22

On due consideration to the fact that the fact witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case; there is no chance of tempering the prosecution evidence; the applicant is the husband; he is languishing in jail since 14.2.2021 and has no previous criminal history.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Manish be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶24

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

¶25

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the

¶26

prosecution witness.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

Order Date :- 8.2.2024

¶32

Madhu

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Shaukin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Chandra Shekhar Rawat @ Goley Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhishek Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Maniram Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Hazrat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Satyam Bajpei Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.