SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajay Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 19 October, 2019


?Court No. – 78

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 22166 of 2018

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha,Ramesh Kumar Sahu,Sunil Vashisth

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Shukla

Hon’ble Siddharth,J.

List has been revised.

No one appears on behalf of the informant.

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

Submission is that the applicant is in jail since 07.01.2016. The first informant, Raj Kumar, who is brother of the deceased has been examined before the Trial Court. He has supported the prosecution case in his statement. However, PW IV, father of the deceased and PW VI another brother of the deceased have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the charge-sheet there are 19 witnesses and trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future. It has been further submitted there was no demand of dowry.

On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted herein above, larger mandate of the SectionArticle 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Ajay Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.07 of 2016, under Sections 498A, Section304B, Section302, Section34 IPC and Section 3/Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Etmadpur, District- Agra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.

5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

Keeping in view all the facts of the case, the Trial Court is directed to conclude and decide the trial within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 19.10.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation