Allahabad High Court
Dev Dutt Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- BAIL No. - 6344 of 2020
Applicant :- Dev Dutt Gupta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Mishra,Ajeet Kumar Singh,Dilip Pandey,Malti Mishra,Ravindra Singh,Suresh Chand Rathour
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.
2. The applicant is an accused in Case Crime No.93 of 2020 under Sections-498A, 304 B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kotwali Sahar, District Hardoi.
3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the complaint dated 16.2.2020 the sister of the complainant was married to Sumit Kumar. Soon after wedding there was demand of dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and the side of the accused refused to take her back to her in laws' house (Vidai) unless the said amount is given. It is further submitted that out of Rs.five lakhs Rs.2 lakhs was given and only then his sister was taken back by her in laws. Despite giving the said amount his sister was constantly mistreated and physically assaulted and abused by the accused persons and consequently on the fateful day kerosene oil was poured on her which caused serious burn injuries. It is stated that the applicant (father-in-law of the deceased) took her to the hospital and subsequently looking to the severity of the burn injuries she was referred to K.G.M.U. Lucknow where she succumbed to her injuries during treatment. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where also the version of the F.I.R. has been reiterated.
4.In support of the bail application it is submitted that only general allegation have been leveleld against the applicant and on the face of it the allegations are false and misconceived in as much as it was the father-in-law (the applicant) who himself took the injured to the hospital and was constantly by her side.
5. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 wherein it has been held that unless there are specific allegations family members are entitled to grant of bail.
6. Lastly, it has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.2.2020 thereby spent nearly more than one and half years in jail.
7. Learned A.G.A. though has opposed the bail application but could not dispute aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
8.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records, the fact that only general allegation have been leveleld against the applicant that too seem to be false and misconceived in as much as it was the father-in-law the applicant who himself taken the injured to the hospital and was constantly by her side and also looking to the statutory provisions, having no criminal history and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 18.2.2020 the Court finds this to be a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant Dev Dutt Gupta involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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 CrPC (iv) argument / judgment.
(vi) 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.
(vii) Since the certified copy of this order, in view of the COVID-2019 pandemic, may not be easily available to the applicant, the applicant may file computer generated copy of this order from the official website of this Court and self- attested by the learned counsel for the applicant, before the concerned Magistrate/Court/Authority/Official.
(viii) The concerned Magistrate/Court/Authority/ Official, before accepting such computerized copy, filed by the applicant, as genuine, shall verify its authenticity from the official website of this Court.
(ix) Office is also directed to send a computerized copy of this order to the District Judge concerned through e-mail or the fax, as the case may be, forthwith.
10. It is provided that none of the observations made above shall be considered by the trial court and the trial shall proceed on its own merits.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
