SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pratap Baitha vs State Of U.P. on 3 December, 2019


?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 35586 of 2017

Applicant :- Pratap Baitha

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, is taken on record.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Pratap Baitha who is involved in Case Crime No. 1380 of 2014, under Sectionsection 498A, Section304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Taryasujan, District Kushinagar.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is husband of the deceased. He is langishing in jail since 18.10.2014. Only two witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution till date. It has further been submitted that applicant is alone son of his father and his father is suffering from liver cirrhosis and his treatment is going on in P.G.I. Lucknow. There is no other to lookafter the father of applicant. It has further been submitted that applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is general allegation against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history.

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is husband of the deceased. The marriage of deceased was solemnized with the applicant about 5 years back of the alleged incident. The deceased was harassed and tortured for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. As per postmortem report two injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. A Fracture of left occipital bone and a fracture of left temporal bone was found to the deceased. 3rd, 4th and 5th rib of left side were also found fractured and the cause of death of the deceased has been shown haemorrhage, shock and coma as a result of ante mortem injuries. The applicant and other co-accused have committed the murder of the deceased. The applicant is husband who is more responsible for safety and security of his wife, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant is refused and the bail application of the applicant Pratap Baitha is hereby rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

Order Date :- 3.12.2019




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