Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2025BAIL/7343/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7343 of 2024; Fakhruddin; bail granted; dowry death; Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C.; Section 3/4 D.P. Act (Dowry Prohibition Act); Case Crime No. 62 of 2024; Police Station Baundi; District Bahraich; suicide by hanging; inquest; no dowry-demand complaint at inquest (conceded by A.G.A.); charge sheet filed; in jail since 05.04.2024; alleged later developm

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Fakhruddin on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(vi) set out in the order; breach of any condition to cons

Fakhruddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2572

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7343 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Fakhruddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Anand Kumar Yadav,Anuj Pandey,Brij Mohan Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri B.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.62 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Baundi, District - Bahraich, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 05.04.2024. He further submits that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased on 11.5.2022 and they were enjoying their matrimonial life but due to some trivial issues, deceased committed suicide by hanging. He further submits that information was given to the informant and other family members of the deceased, thereafter, inquest of the body was conducted but no complaint for demand of dowry was narrated to the officials who conducted the inquest of body of the deceased. He further submits that in the F.I.R. general allegations for demand of dowry was alleged but later on, it is developed that motor cycle was demanded by the applicant. He also submits that no ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased and as charge sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. In such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer for grant of

¶10

bail and submits that it is a case of dowry death, but he does not dispute this fact that during the inquest of body of the deceased, no complaint for demand of dowry was narrated by family members of the deceased.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., material available on record, contents of F.I.R., other relevant documents, nature of offence as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Let applicant - Fakhruddin - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 229-A IPC.

¶17

(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

¶18

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 IPC.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Gaurav/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Ram Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Alka Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko and 2 Others

Damini Yadav Thru. Her Husband Shri Aman Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Ram Singh Vs the State of U.P.

Brijesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Lalita Devi vs Dir. of Enforcement Lko.