Mohd. Hanif @ Hanif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12353 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohd. Hanif @ Hanif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh,Sanjay Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶1Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Mohd. Hanif @ Hanif for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.255 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ishanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri, during trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶5It is further submitted that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged with a delay of 7 days and information pertaining to the happening was given by the applicant to the local police on the basis of which inquest proceedings were drawn. Applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and he had never demanded any dowry or subjected the deceased to cruelty in lieu of any demand and all the averments made in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses are false, concocted and could not be believed. The deceased was married to the son of the applicant and she appears to have committed suicide, which is also evident from the postmortem report, wherein cause of death of the deceased has been shown due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and apart from a ligature mark found around the neck of the deceased, no other injury has been found on the person of the deceased and in presence of the husband of the deceased, no liability or responsibility could be fastened on the applicant to explain the circumstances, under which the deceased had committed suicide as the applicant was living separately in the same house and was not having any concern with their affairs.

¶6It is further submitted that general allegations of demand of dowry has been made against all the accused persons named in the F.I.R., however, no overact or specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant and in presence of the husband of the deceased, the applicant could never be the beneficiary of the dowry, which was being allegedly demanded.

¶7It is also submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 03.08.2023 and he is not having any criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶8Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶9Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that admittedly the instant applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. He is stated to be living separately in the same house and it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that in presence of the husband of the deceased he could not be the beneficiary of any dowry, which was being allegedly demanded and is not in a position to explain the circumstances under which the deceased had committed suicide. The postmortem report of the deceased would reveal that apart from a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased, no other injury has been found on the person of the deceased and the cause of death of the deceased is ascertained as due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. General allegations of demand of dowry has been made against all the accused persons named in the F.I.R., however, no overact or specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant. Applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 03.08.2023 without any criminal antecedents and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶10Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.

¶11Let the accused/applicant-Mohd. Hanif @ Hanif involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶12In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶13Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶14Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Anupam S/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench