SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ram Pravesh vs State Of U.P. on 6 January, 2020


?Court No. – 68


Applicant :- Ram Pravesh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Rai

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant, is taken on record.

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 husband of the deceased. The FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged against 9 persons including the applicant making general allegation and the FIR was lodged on the basis of an application moved under Sectionsection 156(3) Cr.P.C. There is general allegation against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to him. As per postmortem report the deceased died due to burn injuries. There is no dying declaration of the deceased. The deceased has committed suicide herself. The applicant has not compelled the deceased to commit suicide. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. It has further been submitted that during trial the statement of informant Srikant Ram has been recorded as P.W. 1. In his Chief-examination he has supported the prosecution version but in his cross-examination he has not supported the prosecution version and has stated that the deceased was ill due to which she remained in depression. He has further statement that the deceased has not made any allegation with regard to harassment for demand of dowry. P.W. 2 Lalit Kunwar, mother of the deceased has stated in his statement that there was no dispute of demand of dowry. This witness has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile. P.W. 3 Vindhyachal, P.W. 4 Shiv Poojan and P.W. 5 Subhash Chandra have also not supported the prosecution version in their statements and have been declared hostile. The above witnesses have not made any allegation against the applicant. There is no cogent evidence against the applicant to connect with the alleged offence. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 14.5.2019.

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 Ram Pravesh involved in Case Crime No. 50 of 2019, under Sectionsection 498A, Section304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dildar Nagar, District Ghazipur 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 :- 6.1.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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