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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23447

Court No. - 17

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1913 of 2025

Applicant :- Arman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shahid Akhtar,Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

This bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 234 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant five years ago from the date of incident and they were enjoying their matrimonial life and out of their wedlock, two children were also born. It is also submitted that on the date of incident, the applicant was out of station and when he received information that his wife has cut her throat, he immediately rushed to the hospital. It is next submitted that the applicant was also present at the time of inquest as well as post mortem, but on the basis of concocted facts, F.I.R. was lodged. During the course of investigation, statements of independent witnesses, namely, Ram Sharan, Jawahar and Mohd. Rauf were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mohd. Rauf, in his statement, stated that he received information that the wife of the applicant cut her throat, on which, he went to her house and found her body lying in the injured condition. Her two minor children were also there. He also

¶10

stated that thereafter, with the assistance of other persons, wife of the applicant was shifted to Government hospital, Rampur Mathura, where first aid was given by the doctor and she was referred to District Hospital, Barabanki. Thereafter, she was again referred to Ram Manohar Lohia hospital, Lucknow, but in the way, she died.

¶11

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in mechanical manner without considering the statement of aforesaid witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is vehemently submitted that after framing of charge, till today, only four witnesses have been examined. In the deposition of P.W. 1, he admitted that the Police officer told the informant for making allegation in the complaint and thereafter the case shall be registered. He also stated that the police personnel also assisted for preparation of the complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that all the witnesses of fact have already been examined and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is lastly submitted that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial and the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 26.06.2021. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but does not dispute the fact that aforesaid independent witnesses have narrated a different story. He also concedes the fact that four witnesses of fact have already been examined.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of F.I.R., bail application, as well as other relevant documents including the statement of witnesses and the written instructions dated 25.03.2025 sent by the trial court, it is evident that the four witnesses of fact have

¶14

already been examined and as rest of the witnesses are not appearing before the trial court, bailable warrants have been issued against them.

¶15

In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Application stands allowed.

¶17

Let applicant -Arman be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 234 of 2021, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

(ii) 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 office or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶21

(iv) 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 229A IPC.

¶22

(v) 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 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

¶23

IPC.

¶24

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for 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.

¶25

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 VKS

¶27

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

Arman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Radheshyam Vs Renu Mishra, S.D.M. Mitauli Kheri

Ram Sajivan Vs Shri. Ajay Chauhan, Chairman, U.P. Rajkiyanirman Nigam Ltd., Gomti Nagar Lko. and Another

Suresh Chandra Vs Dr. Mahendra Dev Singh Director Secondary Edu. Lko.

Smt. Pushpa vs Girjesh Kumar, Suprintendent of Police Crime Branch Crime Investigation Deptt. Lko.

Jolly Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Abhilasha Chetan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another