SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jaihind vs State Of U.P. on 14 January, 2020


?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 2109 of 2020

Applicant :- Jaihind

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Certified copy of the FIR filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is husband of the deceased. Initially the FIR of the alleged incident was lodged under sections 498A, 302 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. During investigation the case was converted under section 306 IPC. In the statements of the witnesses it has come that the applicant and devar of the deceased did not permit the deceased to go to her parental house on the occasion of festival of Rakshabandhan due to which the deceased has committed suicide herself. In postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased could not ascertained, therefore the viscera was preserved. The viscera report has not been received. It has further been submitted that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant in the year 2009. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. A case for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C was filed by the deceased against the applicant which was settled in between the applicant and deceased in the year 2011. At the time of the alleged incident the applicant and deceased were living happily and there is a minor child from the wedlock of the applicant and deceased. The applicant has not harassed or tortured the deceased and has not compelled the deceased to commit suicide. There is no cogent evidence with regard to abatement against the applicant. It has further been submitted that the applicant is a poor person and is having rustic background. There was only the deceased in house of the applicant to look after the house of the applicant and his minor child. It has further been submitted that the offence under section 306 IPC is not made out. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence.There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 31.8.2019.

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

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

Let the applicant Jaihind involved in Case Crime No. 123 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 306, IPC P.S. Badgaon, District Jhansi 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:-

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate with the trial.

3. The applicant will 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 :- 14.1.2020/A.



Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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