Jhurri @ Jamil Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Jhurri @ Jamil Ahmad) is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024 in Case Crime No.0285 of 2024, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323 & 506 IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bahraich. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶10

Attention has been drawn towards impugned FIR which was lodged on 06.06.2024 for the alleged incident dated 26.04.2024 pursuant to the application being filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 03.05.2024. As per allegation of the FIR, due to non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, the daughter of complainant was beaten and forcefully provided poisonous content and after taking such poisonous content, she died.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant is the father-in-law and his relation with deceased was very cordial. This is a case of poisoning and the poisonous content is Aluminium phosphide. Antemortem injuries are nil. The cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved. Learned counsel has further submitted that he has enclosed the statements of PW-1 & PW-2 i.e. informant and brother of the deceased, who have turned hostile as they have not supported the prosecution version, rather has stated that the FIR was lodged on the advice of other persons. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Charge-sheet has been filed.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an

¶13

undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicants by submitting that the allegation against the present applicant is serious in nature, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail,

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the material available on record, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, antemortem injuries are nil; cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved; the statements of PW-1 & PW-2 i.e. informant and brother of the deceased, who have turned hostile as they have not supported the prosecution version, rather has stated that the FIR was lodged on the advice of other persons; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant (Jhurri @ Jamil Ahmad), involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear

¶21

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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Reena/-

¶25

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jhurri @ Jamil Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhurri @ Jamil Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yashodhan Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance, Lko. and 7 Others

Mohammad Shamshad Ansari Vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Oficer Ashok Lko. U.P. Thru. Assistant Director

Ram Achal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy (Home) Lko.

Mayaram Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko and 3 Others

Nadiya Khaja Shaikh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Tahseen and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.