SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ram Pyari vs State Of U.P. on 11 February, 2020


?Court No. – 28

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 45221 of 2019

Applicant :- Ram Pyari

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Prakash Yadav,Bijai Nath Yadav,Satya Prakash Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.

Heard MR. Bijai Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. representing opposite party No. 1.

This second application for bail has been filed by applicant Ram Pyari seeking her enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 289 of 2018, arising out of case crime no. 139 of 2018 (State Vs. Vivek Singh and others) under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Malwa, District-Fatehpur during pendency of above mentioned trial.

First bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated 27.11.2018. This Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant considered the dying declaration of the deceased, in which the deceased has clearly nominated present applicant in the criminality committed upon her.

Learned counsel for applicant invited the attention of the Court to the statement of father of the deceased namely Bansidhar, wherein he has stated that on account of influence of his son, the deceased has given dying declaration referred to above. He, therefore, submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, dying declaration cannot be relied upon and therefore, the applicant who is a lady aged about 64 years is liable to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that ground urged by learned counsel for applicant in the second bail application was available to the learned counsel for applicant at the time of hearing of first bail application, but the same was not raised. He further submits that occurrence has taken place outside the kitchen. He lastly submits that even though occurrence has taken place in the house of the applicant, no explanation has been given as to how the occurrence took place. Therefore, in view of the circumstances noted above and the testimony of the father of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C., the credibility of the dying declaration of the deceased cannot be doubted, therefore, he submits that no new or good ground is made out for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

Having heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. representing opposite party No. 1 and upon perusal of material available on record, I do not find any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

Considering the fact that the applicant is an old lady aged about 64 years and prosecution is delaying the trial on account of non co-operation of prosecution witnesses, as is evident from the order sheet, Court below is directed to proceed with the trail with all expedition and without granting any unnecessary adjournment.

Order Date :- 11.2.2020




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