Allowed

Hariom @ Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024BAIL/7490/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding alleged dowry death (Section 498-A IPC), the single judge allowed bail for the applicant pending trial. The court relied on the fact that the deceased died by suicide and co-accused were already on bail, while expressing no opinion on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to undertaking not to seek adjournments during evidence and appearing on trial dates.

Hariom @ Krishna vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47930

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7490 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hariom @ Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Anand Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, learned brief holder for the State.

¶8

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.472 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Nighasan, District Kheri.

¶9

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that general allegation of dowry demand has been levelled against the applicant and his family members and the marriage was performed prior to two years from the date of incident.He further submits that deceased wanted to live with the applicant in the city but he could not fulfill her demand that is why she committed suicide. He has submitted that neither the deceased nor her family members has lodged any report of harassment or dowry demand prior to the present case and for the first time it has been mentioned in the FIR that additional dowry of Rs. one lakh and a motorcycle were demanded by the applicant and his family members.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging. Injury no.1, the post mortem report indicates that there is ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, which is caused due to hanging. It has been submitted that injury no.2 of the post mortem report i.e. abraded contusion of 2.0

¶11

cm x 01 cm over the left side of chin could have been caused by rope while she hanged herself by it.

¶12

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Chheddu @ Chheda and Reshma alias Meera have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench this Court vide order dated 24.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13179 of 2023. The applicant has no previous criminal history and is in jail since 13.07.2023.

¶13

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that it is a case of dowry death as such the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

8. 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 the deceased committed suicide herself by hanging; the argument that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging and the argument that co-accused Chheddu @ Chheda and Reshma alias Meera have already granted bail by this Court, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released.

¶15

9. The bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶16

10. Let applicant, namely, Hariom @ Krishna , 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 :-

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 dk/

¶24

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

Hariom @ Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom @ Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. 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

Nand Lal Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Dept. Lko. and 2 Others

Vinay Kumar Alias Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Deenbandhu (According Aadhar Card Deenbandhu Prajapati) vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Abdul Wahid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Hariom @ Krishna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko

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