Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Dileep Kumar vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|16 December, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8014 of 2019 Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh,Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State have filed supplementary affidavit and counter affidavit, are taken on record.
This bail application has been filed for bail of applicant-Dileep Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 122 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Manda, District Allahabad.
Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Smt. Anju Devi, sister of Vinod Kumar, was married to the applicant, three years prior to the occurrence. On 21.5.2018, upon information that his sister Anju had died in her matrimonial house, informant went to her matrimonial house and found that the deceased had died due to strangulation. On the said application, an F.I.R. under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act has been registered against the applicant along with his father, mother and elder brother and after the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence. In post-mortem report, it has been clearly found that a ligature mark around her neck was found having a gap of 11 c.m. in the front aspect of the neck. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased in her suicidal note has mentioned that she has committed suicide. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution witnesses PW-1, Vinod Kumar; PW-2, Smt. Keshpatti (mother of the deceased); PW-3 Banwari Lal (brother of the deceased) have not supported the prosecution version and stated that the applicant had not committed any offence.
Learned counsel further submits that co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. Applicant is law abiding person having no criminal antecedents and languishing in jail since 18.7.2018. If he is released on bail, he will never misuse his liberty, terms and conditions of bail and will co-operate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not disputed the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, material available on record regarding role of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed.
Let the applicant-Dileep Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (one should be of his family members/nearest relatives) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(v) 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 (iv) argument/judgement.
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.
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 Saurabh
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Dileep Kumar vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
16 December, 2019
Judges
  • Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Advocates
  • Sandeep Kumar Singh Sunil Vashisth