SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Fanindra Pathak vs State Of U.P. on 12 July, 2019


?Court No. – 74

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 6964 of 2019

Applicant :- Fanindra Pathak

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Ramdeo Pathak

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

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

By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.521 of 2018, under Sections 498A, Section304B I.P.C. and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

Urge made on behalf of the applicant is confined to the ambit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on account of he being husband. The dowry demand was neither raised nor was dowry death caused. There is no proof that any cruelty was perpetrated upon the deceased. No offence, whatsoever, has been committed by the applicant. In case the applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 20.10.2018.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that statement of the victim has been recorded wherein specific allegation of harassment was made by her on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand and the post mortem examination report dated 18.10.2018 is indicative of fact that there were several ante mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased Sangeeta. Record reflects that there was consistent and continued communication amongst the victim, the informant, mother of the victim who corroborated the prosecution story in their statement.

Considered the rival submissions, perused the material brought on record and the enormity of the offence. No good ground is made out for bail.

Consequently, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceeding of the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before it, if there is no legal impediment in its way.

It is made clear that observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Order Date :- 12.7.2019




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