SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kailash vs State Of U.P. on 9 January, 2020


?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 1341 of 2020

Applicant :- Kailash

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Singh Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. The FIR of the alleged incident was lodged against four persons including the applicant making general allegation. In first information report the additional demand of dowry has been shown motorcycle. The applicant is not beneficiary of alleged demand of dowry. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the son of the applicant in the year 2016. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The dying declaration of the deceased was also recorded by Additional City Magistrate concerned in which she has made specific allegation against her devar namely Deepak for setting her on fire after pouring kerosene oil. She has further stated that he has also thrown her child upon her due to which he sustained injury and died. The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant, mother-in-law and Deepak dever of the deceased used to commit marpeet with her. She has further stated that at the time of the alleged incident her mother-in-law had gone for call of nature and the applicant had gone to bring the water. At the time of the alleged incident the applicant was not present at his house. The allegation for setting the deceased on fire and throwing the child upon her has been levelled against co-accused Deepak, who is devar of the deceased. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to being father of husband of the deceased. Neither the applicant has harassed or tortured the deceased nor he has committed the alleged offence. There is no direct evidence against the applicant.The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the co-accused devar of the deceased, namely Deepak. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 10.6.2019.

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 Kailash involved in Case Crime No. 470 of 2019, S.T. No. 280 of 2019, (State Vs. Raj Kumar and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 304, 304B, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar 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 :- 9.1.2020/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