Allowed

Taj Mohammad @ Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025BAIL/6273/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a dowry death case involving allegations of general dowry demand against family members. Postmortem showed only a ligature mark, cause of death antimortem hanging. Co-accused had been granted bail and applicant was in jail over two years; court granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Taj Mohammad @ Aas Mohammad to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to stated conditions.

Taj Mohammad @ Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7073

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6273 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Taj Mohammad @ Aas Mohammad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Pandey,Hari Mangal Singh,Rajendra Prasad Tripathi,Yogendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.02 of 2023 (Sessions Trial No.1212 of 2023) under sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohanlal Ganj, District Lucknow.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased had taken place prior to two years of the incident and it was the applicant's second marriage. Prior to present incident, no FIR or any complaint was ever filed against in-laws either by the deceased or by her family members. It has been further submitted that only general allegations of dowry demand has been levelled against the family members. He has further submitted that the deceased committed suicide for the reason that two children were born out of the earlier wedlock of the applicant and the deceased was not happy with the children and there were altercations between the applicant and the deceased, that is why she committed suicide. The postmortem report indicates that there is only legature mark on the neck of the deceased, otherwise there is no internal or external injury found on the person of the deceased. Cause of death as per postmortem report is 'antimortem hanging'. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused, namely, Nagma and Hazrat Ali, have been granted bail vide orders dated 2.11.2023 and 17.1.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10034 of 2023 and 271 of 2024. The applicant is in jail since 7.1.2023, i.e. for more than 2 years. He has no criminal history. Learned counsel further submits that there is no likelihood that the trial would be concluded in near future.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but he could not dispute the fact that the postmortem report does not indicate any internal or external injury on the body of the deceased, except legature mark on her neck and the cause of death is 'antimortem hanging'.

¶11

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 no internal or external injuries were found on the person of the deceased, except one ligature mark on her neck; only general allegations of dowry demand has been levelled against the family members; co-accused, namely, Nagma and Hazrat Ali, have been granted bail by this court; and the argument that the applicant is in jail since 7.1.2023, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The application is accordingly allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant, namely, Taj Mohammad alias Aas Mohammad , 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 :-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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

¶17

liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶18

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.

¶19

( Brij Raj Singh, J. )

¶20

Order Date :- 4.2.2025 A.Nigam

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Taj Mohammad @ Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taj Mohammad @ Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. 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

A.R. Enterprises Thru. Its Proprietor Saiyyad Nadeem Shahid Alias Nadeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Sharad Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nanhke and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Naushad Ali and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Arvind Rastogi @ Arvind Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Brigadier Retd. Rakesh Kumar Sood and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.