SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mahendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 3 January, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 58187 of 2019

Applicant :- Mahendra Singh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Atharva Dixit,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Manish Tiwary(Senior Adv.),Varun Kumar Agnihotri

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 FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged against 4 persons including the applicant. In FIR it has been mentioned that Jeth Ranveer assaulted on the head of the deceased with Lathi. The applicant, co-accused Nathia, mother-in-law and Poonam, Jethani set the deceased on fire after pouring kerosene oil. Demand of dowry has also been shown in the FIR. The real fact is that there was no dispute of demand of dowry. The alleged occurrence is said to be taken place at village Pilua while the applicant resides at Barsana. At the time of alleged incident the applicant was living separate from the deceased and her husband at Barsana. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. Informant Charan Singh is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence. The dying declaration of the deceased was also recorded. Although 100% burn injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The deceased was not in a position to give any dying declaration. The dying declaration is also doubtful. The deceased in her dying declaration has said that her Jeth Ranveer and Jethani Poonam quarrelled with her and committed marpit with her after closing room and set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil. She further stated that all person set her on fire. Mother-in-law and father-in-law were also present there. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the dying declaration of the deceased. General allegation has been made against the applicant and it is said that at the time of alleged occurrence the applicant was also present at the place of occurrence. It has further been submitted that supplementary statements of informant Charan Singh and Balveer Singh, brother of the deceased were also recorded by the I.O. in which it has come that prior to the dying declaration one person was present in hospital who told the deceased that if she told to the Magistrate that she herself set her on fire then she will be sent to the jail by the police which shows that the deceased has given her dying declaration under some influence. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. In the supplementary statements of Charan Singh and Balveer Singh it has come that the deceased sustained accidental injuries while she was cooking food. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no cogent evidence against the applicant to connect with the alleged offence. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 5.10.2019.

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 Mahendra Singh involved in Case Crime No. 151 of 2019, under Sectionsection 498A, Section304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Farah, District Mathura 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. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.

3. He shall 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 :- 3.1.2020

Masarrat

 

 

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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