SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kamal Singh vs State Of U.P. on 12 July, 2019


?Court No. – 74

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 27836 of 2019

Applicant :- Kamal Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh

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 record of this application.

The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.32 of 2019, under Sections 498A, Section304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Baniyather, District Sambhal.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in this case admittedly marriage took place in the year 2014 and there was no demand of dowry raised by the applicant. No specific allegation was ever made upto this stage against the applicant and the applicant has been roped in, in this case merely because he is the husband of the deceased. He further adds that victim committed suicide on a trivial issue with the applicant as the deceased wanted to go to her parental home on the date of the incident. There was no motive for the applicant to commit the alleged offence. Applicant has no criminal history. He is a law abiding citizen and in case, applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of absconding or misusing the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that in this case the applicant is the husband. There is presumption running against the applicant under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and as per the allegations made against the applicant every ingredient of Section 304B IPC is complete because marriage took place in the year 2014. This by itself is confirmative that marriage is within 7 years. Death itself is unnatural. The allegations in the FIR are itself reflective of fact that the demand of dowry was raised, therefore, the legal presumption still stands against the applicant as he is the husband and custodian of the deceased.

After hearing the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant, the reply by the learned counsel for the learned A.G.A. and upon perusal of the various documents annexed with the present bail application and also looking to the allegations made in the FIR, and considering the gravity of the offence, no good ground is made out for bail.

Accordingly, this bail application is rejected at this stage.

Trial court is expected to conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably, within a period of five months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it.

The observation so made in the body of this order shall not prejudice proceeding of the trial court while deciding the case on merit.

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