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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82507

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 944 of 2024

Applicant :- Shiv Pratap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- I.M. Pandey Ist,Ajeet Verma,Jyoti Rawat,Ram Samujh Rawat

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 99 of 2023, under sections 498-A, 307 IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationKhandasa, District- Ayodhya.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. She further submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he along with other two co-accused persons had poured Tarpin oil and set ablaze the victim who received burn injuries. She added that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of false and concocted story as the victim sustained burn injuries on her own and the applicant/husband himself had brought the victim to the hospital for treatment and this fact has not specifically been denied by the State while filing the counter affidavit. She next added that mens rea is missing as the husband/applicant himself brought the victim to the hospital. Further submitted that two other co-accused persons (Nands of the deceased) namely, Smt. Asha and Smt. Sita have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14269 of 2023. She added that since charge-sheet has been filed, thus, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidence or would threaten the witnesses. She also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 16.9.2023. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence and thus, he is not

¶11

entitled for any relief.

¶12

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.9.2023; the FIR has been lodged on the basis of false and concocted story as the victim herself sustained burn injuries and the applicant/husband himself had brought the victim to the hospital for treatment and this fact has not specifically been denied by the State while filing the counter affidavit; two other co-accused persons (Nands of the deceased) namely, Smt. Asha and Smt. Sita have already been enlarged on bail; charge-sheet has been filed and thus, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidence or would threaten the witnesses.; there is no criminal history of the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Shiv Pratap involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) 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. He 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;

¶17

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Shravan

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Shadan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Tiwari @ Laddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Radhey Shyam vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Sachin Jaisawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Arvind Maurya and 30 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another