SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Chintamani vs State Of U.P. on 13 December, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 55484 of 2019

Applicant :- Chintamani

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. In postmortem report the cause of death has been shown asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation.The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. It has further been submitted that there was no dispute of demand of dowry. During trial the statements of Bindeshwari Prasad, father of the deceased and Smt. Mayawati @ Umawati, mother of the deceased have been recorded as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. P.W. 1 Bindeshwari Prasad in his cross-examination has clearly stated that there was no dispute of demand of dowry. P.W. 2 Smt. Mayawati @ Umawati has also stated that the applicant has not harassed or tortured the deceased and the applicant has not made any demand of dowry. There is no other cogent evidence against the applicant. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of husband of the deceased. The co-accused Parwati mother-in-law of the deceased has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51746 of 2019 therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 19.4.2019.

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Chintamani involved in Case Crime No. 54 of 2019, under Sectionsection 498A, Section304B, Section504, Section506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Parasrampur, District Basti be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.

3. The applicant appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

Order Date :- 13.12.2019/A.

 

 

Leave a Reply

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

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