SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajesh vs State Of U.P. on 3 January, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 58175 of 2019

Applicant :- Rajesh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as 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. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured to the deceased. There is general allegation against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to him. The deceased died due to burn injuries. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. There is no dying declaration of the deceased. At the time of alleged incident the applicant was living separate from the deceased and her husband. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of husband of the deceased. The co-accused Smt. Vimlesh and Golu @ Murari, mother-in-law and Dewar of the deceased have already been released on bail by another bench of this court vide order dated 11.11.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47344 of 2019, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 24.6.2019.

Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that 100% burn has been found on the body of the deceased. The applicant was also living in the same house. The applicant and his other family members have not tried to save the deceased. The deceased was harassed and tortured by the applicant and other co-accused for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, 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 find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Rajesh involved in Case Crime No. 183 of 2019, under Sectionsection 498A, Section304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bewar, District Mainpuri 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 *

Copyright © 2020 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