Allowed

Umakant v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2025BAIL/7295/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the accused husband in a dowry death case. The court noted that prosecution witnesses, the deceased's parents, denied allegations during examination-in-chief after initially lodging an FIR, making a conviction unlikely. Bail granted on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

Umakant vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29110

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7295 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Umakant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaskar Singh,Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the complainant-Bhulli Prasad who is father of the deceased lodged a first information report on 28.03.2024 with regard to an incident which took place on 27.03.2024 against applicant-Umakant (husband of the deceased) and his other family members, namely, Shivakant, Sangita, Rakesh, Smt. Ranjana and Galu for the alleged offence under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act making allegations inter alia of harassment and torture of his daughter in her matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry, but when complainant-Bhulli Prasad and Munni Devi, who are father and mother of the deceased, have been examined before the trial court as PW-1 and PW-2 on 20.11.2024 and 04.01.2025 respectively, did not support the prosecution case and denied the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. in their examination-in-chief, therefore, at the request of the prosecution they have been declared hostile just after recording their examination-in-chief. Hence, there is bleak chance of conviction of the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the

¶9

applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.03.2024 having no criminal history to his credit and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶10

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 28.03.2024, whereas statement of PW-1 has been recorded after a considerable delay on 20.11.2024, therefore, possibility of winning over the prosecution witness from the side of the accused cannot be ruled out.

¶11

Having heard the submissions learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that in the light of statements of the complainant and his wife (father and mother of the deceased), the applicant has made out prima facie case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant- Umakant , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶14

(ii) That 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶16

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶18

It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Kashifa

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Umakant v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umakant v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Manohar Singh vs State of U.P.

Hira Lal Ram vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajveer Singh vs State of U.P.

Rafik vs State of U.P.

Rajnath Singh vs State of U.P.

Utkarshini @ Pakhi (Minor) and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others