SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raj Kishor Soni & Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 24 September, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. – 12

Case :- BAIL No. – 9161 of 2019

Applicant :- Raj Kishor Soni Anr.

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Sri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Gajendra Misra, learned Advocatehas filed ‘Vakalatnama’ on behalf of complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present bail application has been moved by the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased who have been charged bearing Case Crime No. 190/2019, u/s 498A, 304B SectionI.P.C. 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Huzurpur, District Bahraich.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants have not demanded dowry from the deceased and they were living separately. His son Suresh Kumar resides in another house and he used to manage his family affairs separately.

Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the present applicants are in jail since 5.7.2019, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that after being released on bail they shall not temper any evidence nor influence any witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings without taking any unnecessary adjournments.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail application submitting that the demand of dowry was not only made by the husband of the deceased but by the parents also. He has further submitted that in the F.I.R. total 7 persons were named but the charge-sheet was filed only against the husband and parents who are applicants here.

Sri Gajendra Mishra has also opposed the bail application and submitted with vehemence that the parents of Suresh Kumar, the husband of the deceased, had been demanding dowry continuously and since the demand of dowry was not satisfied all the accused persons were torturing the deceased, therefore, under the compelling circumstances the deceased had got no other way to commit suicide. As per Sri Gajendra Mishra if suicide takes place on account of demand of dowry and frequent torture, the accused persons should be punished with severe punishment.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and considering the fact that the present applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and they are in jail since 5.7.2019, therefore, the applicants are entitled for bail.

Let the applicants Raj Kishor Soni and Raatrani @ Susheela, involved in Case Crime No. 190/2019, u/s 498A, 304B SectionI.P.C. 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Huzurpur, District Bahraich 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) 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.

(ii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) 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. 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.

(iv) 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. 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 :- 24.9.2019

Om

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

 

 

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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