Chhotu Bind vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32327

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7997 of 2025

Applicant :- Chhotu Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kalp Nath,Vivekanand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aurai, District Bhadohi, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainantPandhari Bind, who is father of the deceased Laxmi, lodged a first information report on 20.07.2024 for the offence under Sections 85, 80(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against Chotu Bind (applicant) who is husband and other family members who are mother-in-law, sister-in-law ( jethani ) and brother-in-law ( jeth ) of the deceased, respectively, making allegations inter alia of harassment and torture of deceased-Laxmi in her matrimonial home on account of non-fulfilment of their demand of dowry.

¶9

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that though in the F.I.R., complainant has made allegations that on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry his daughter has been done to death in her matrimonial home, but when the prosecution witnesses, namely, Pandhari, Shyamdhar Bind, Vimla and Pradum, who are father, uncle, mother and brother of the deceased respectively, have been examined before the trial court as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, they have not

¶10

supported the prosecution case in their examinationin-chief and have clearly stated inter alia that there was no demand of dowry by in-laws of the deceased. In fact, deceased-Laxmi was not inclined to live in joint family and she was insisting to live separately with her husband. When applicant did not accept her demand, then she committed suicide. They have also stated that the cremation of dead body of deceasedLaxmi was also done by her in-laws and they had participated in funeral ceremony. Considering the examination-in-chief of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, at the request of prosecution, the trial court has declared them hostile. It is further submitted that other co-accused persons, namely, Smt Rani and Vikesh Kumar @ Vivek, who are sisterin-law ( Jethani ) and brother-in-law ( Jeth ) of the deceased as well as Somari Devi, who is mother-inlaw of the deceased have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 15.10.2024 and 18.02.2025 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 9925 of 2024 and 10761 of 2024 respectively. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, it is further argued that now there is bleak chance of conviction of the applicant who has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 22.07.2024, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 20.07.2024 but statement of complainant as PW-1 was recorded on 24.01.2025, hence there was enough time to win over the prosecution witnesses, therefore, possibility of winning over the prosecution witnesses from the side of accused cannot be ruled out.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that family members of the deceased including her father and mother have not supported the prosecution case as noted above, therefore, in the light of their statements recorded before the trial court, the applicant has made out a prima facie case

¶13

for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Chhotu Bind , 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:

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Kashifa

¶22

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

Chhotu Bind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu Bind v. State of U.P.

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

Kuldeep vs State of U.P.

Raman vs State of U.P.

Ramkrit Ram vs State of U.P.

Uttam Singh vs State of U.P.

Ajay Singh vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh vs State of U.P.