SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajendra Soni vs State Of U.P. on 6 February, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 36152 of 2019

Applicant :- Rajendra Soni

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Raja Ram Kushwaha,Mohd Raghib Ali

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Bahadur,Virendra Singh Parmar

Hon’ble Siddharth,J.

Heard. Sri Sagir Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Raghib Ali, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri V. S. Parmar and Sri Ram Bahadur, learned counsels for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Submission is that applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. General allegations have been made against the applicant and other family members of causing death of the deceased for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Cause of death of the deceased was not ascertained and visra was preserved. In the visra report cause of death shown in by consumption of poison. The statement of the younger sister of the deceased has been recorded, wherein she alleged that poison was administered by grand mother of the husband of the deceased. She has made allegation of out raging her modesty against the applicant and husband of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegation of out raging modesty of the younger sister has been levelled subsequently to lend colour to the case. Such allegation was not part of the first information report initially lodged. The applicant is father in law of the deceased. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He is languishing in jail since 22.03.2019.

Learned AGA and Sri V. S. Parmar, learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. Sri Parmar, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the marriage of the deceased took place three years ago and her death took place in mysterious circumstance, which was later found to be by poisoning. In another case applicant and other family members were implicated, which was also related to demand of dowry.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has rejoined and has pointed out that the aforesaid final report was filed on the ground that earlier daughter-in-law of the applicant died on account of illness and not due to any act on the part of the family members of the applicant.

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 Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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, Rajendra Soni, involved in Case Crime No.96 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B, 376, 354A, 328, 511 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and under Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Maudha, District- Hamirpur 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.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

(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. 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.

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.

Order Date :- 6.2.2020

SS

 

 

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