Jareena v. State of U.P., therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present appli

1.Heard Sri Avadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nikhil Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State and Sri Santosh Srivastava, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ informant, the same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mohd. Shamim @ Pappu) is languishing in jail since 21.09.2024 in Case Crime No.248 of 2024, under Sections 80/85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Aaspur Deosara, District-Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) which shows that for the alleged incident the date has been indicated as 16.09.2024 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 19.09.2024 without explaining the reason of delay. As per the impugned F.I.R., the allegation has been levelled against the entire family of the husband, Asif, including the brother-in-law (Devar), sister-in-laws (Nanad) of the deceased. The present applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and his relation with his daughter-in-law was cordial. He is a poor vegetable vendor and has not demanded any dowry from her daughter-in-law or her family members. The present applicant is absolutely unaware as to why his daughter-in-law has committed suicide. There might be some dispute between husband and wife. As per the postmortem report, the deceased had received one ligature mark on the right side of neck and abrasion over the left foot.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since the victim committed suicide with the help of one chair, therefore, she might have received foot injury from that chair and the ligature mark might have been caused on account of hanging. There are no other bodily injury. On the similar allegation the wife of the present applicant, namely, Jareena, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12673 of 2024; Jareena vs. State of U.P., therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may be granted bail. He has nothing to do with the family affairs of his son and his wife. The charge- sheet has already been filed in this case. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ informant have, however, opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that there are delay in lodging the impugned F.I.R. which has not been explained; the fact that the co-accused, Jareena, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 (supra); the charge-sheet has been filed in this case; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; the undertaking that the present applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly; without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant (Mohd. Shamim @ Pappu) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Sri Avadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nikhil Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State and Sri Santosh Srivastava, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ informant, the same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mohd. Shamim @ Pappu) is languishing in jail since 21.09.2024 in Case Crime No.248 of 2024, under Sections 80/85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Aaspur Deosara, District-Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) which shows that for the alleged incident the date has been indicated as 16.09.2024 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 19.09.2024 without explaining the reason of delay. As per the impugned F.I.R., the allegation has been levelled against the entire family of the husband, Asif, including the brother-in-law (Devar), sister-in-laws (Nanad) of the deceased. The present applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and his relation with his daughter-in-law was cordial. He is a poor vegetable vendor and has not demanded any dowry from her daughter-in-law or her family members. The present applicant is absolutely unaware as to why his daughter-in-law has committed suicide. There might be some dispute between husband and wife. As per the postmortem report, the deceased had received one ligature mark on the right side of neck and abrasion over the left foot.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since the victim committed suicide with the help of one chair, therefore, she might have received foot injury from that chair and the ligature mark might have been caused on account of hanging. There are no other bodily injury. On the similar allegation the wife of the present applicant, namely, Jareena, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12673 of 2024; Jareena vs. State of U.P., therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may be granted bail. He has nothing to do with the family affairs of his son and his wife. The charge- sheet has already been filed in this case. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ informant have, however, opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that there are delay in lodging the impugned F.I.R. which has not been explained; the fact that the co-accused, Jareena, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 (supra); the charge-sheet has been filed in this case; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; the undertaking that the present applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly; without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant (Mohd. Shamim @ Pappu) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench