SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajjan Kewat vs State Of U.P. on 19 October, 2019


?Court No. – 74

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 41551 of 2019

Applicant :- Rajjan Kewat

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Devi Deen Yadav

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.162 of 2015, under Sections 498A, Section304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kamasin, District Banda.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in this case admittedly marriage took place in the year 2013 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. In fact the deceased being fed up with the act of another person- say- Kamlesh- committed suicide by setting herself on fire. At the time of the occurrence, the applicant being engaged in manual labour work was outside his home. He never raised any demand for dowry nor perpetrated any violence or cruelty on the deceased. There is no eye- account testimony of the incident in question. 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 AGA has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that the testimony before the trial court is going on wherein the alleged dowry death has been supported by the witnesses. Moreso, the allegations have not been rebutted under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, whereas the husband being the custodian of the wife is required to explain categorically and substantially as to how the death occurred and he has got no nexus to the offence in question.

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 without incurring any unnecessarily delay.

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 :- 19.10.2019




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