Allowed

Intezar Husain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2025CRLA/683/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal and set aside an order declining bail. The court held that as the trial is unlikely to conclude soon and no substantive offence was made out for 498-A or 304-B IPC, the appellant entitled to bail subject to conditions regarding presence and attendance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 09.02.2024 set aside; Appellant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to file no adjournments and appear before trial court.

Intezar Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:685

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 683 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Intezar Husain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan,Anand Dubey,Narsingh Yadav,Prashant Dubey

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Aklavya,Dinesh Kumar,Sarjoo Ram

¶7

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 11 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 71 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baba Bazar, District Ayodhya.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution case, daughter of the informant was killed by the appellant for demand of dowry, however, her marriage was never solemnized with the appellant and she was actually married with one Ranjeet on 02.05.2022. Thereafter, she came back to her parental house and on 06.05.2022 and joined the company of the appellant on her own and they went to Lucknow. It is further submitted that thereafter they came back, but at the same time, F.I.R. No. 120 of 2022 under Section 366 I.P.C., P.S. Mawai, District Ayodhya was lodged by the informant of the present case against the appellant. In the said F.I.R., statement of the victim was recorded on 07.06.2022 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which, she categorically stated that she liked the appellant, as a result of which, she left her house and went to Lucknow with the appellant, but they were caught. she also stated that she was willing to live with the appellant.

¶11

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is admitted case that the first marriage of the victim was not dissolved and, therefore, the allegation of marriage with the appellant cannot sustain. It is further submitted that the inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted, in which, no ante mortem injury was found. The informant was also one of the witness of the inquest and stated that the deceased committed suicide. It is also submitted that thereafter, F.I.R. No. 71 of 2023 (supra) was lodged and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in mechanical manner for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, however, admittedly, no offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act is made out against the appellant. It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near further and, therefore, the appellant, who has no criminal antecedent and is in jail since 10.06.2023, is entitled for bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that in the post mortem report, 7 ante mortem injury was found. However, he does not dispute the fact that in the inquest report, no injury was found on the body of the deceased. He also does not dispute the fact that the informant, who was one of the witness of the inquest, had not made any complaint to the Officers, who conducted the inquest.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, judgment of the trial court dated 09.02.2024 as well as other relevant documents including the inquest report, post mortem report as also the statement of the victim/deceased recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 120 of 2022 (supra), it is very much evident that the marriage of the victim was solemnized with one Ranjeet on 02.05.2022. Thereafter, she joined the company of the appellant on her

¶14

own on 06.05.2022.

¶15

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is, accordingly, allowed.

¶16

Impugned order dated 09.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 11 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 71 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baba Bazar, District Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let appellant, Intezar Husain be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 71 of 2023 on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶18

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.

¶19

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

¶20

(iii) In case, the appellant 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.

¶21

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before

¶22

the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.1.2025 VKS

¶24

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

Intezar Husain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intezar Husain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Umesh Chandra Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Evam Gramudyog Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar @ Ramu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Guddu @ Naseem Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mohammad Afzal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another

Samad Habeeb vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saiful Haq Farooqui and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another