SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rameshwar Dharikar vs State Of U.P. on 27 September, 2019


?Court No. – 74

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 28304 of 2019

Applicant :- Rameshwar Dharikar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

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

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

Heard Sri Bijai Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Narain Tripathi, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Brief Holders, Sri Jitendra Kumar, Sri Sanjay Kumar Rajbher, learned A.G.As. for the State and perused the material available on record.

By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.168 of 2018, under Sections – 498A, 304B SectionI.P.C. and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- George Town, District – Allahabad.

Urge made on behalf of the applicant has been confined to the ambit that the applicant was not present on the spot at the time of the occurrence. Neither such offence was ever committed by the applicant nor was there any occasion. The applicant being poor man was busy in earning his livelihood. The allegations levelled against the applicant are bald and baseless and without any supporting material. The applicant has been roped-in, in this case on account of he being husband of the deceased although there is no eye account testimony of the offence being committed by the applicant. Applicant had neither raised any dowry demand nor had he perpetrated cruelty upon the deceased. In case, the applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 06.04.2018.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that in this case, the applicant is husband of the deceased and the incident took place within seven years of the marriage. The allegations of cruelty being perpetrated are very much specific in the statement of the informant and the presumption raised under Section 113B Indian Evidence Act has not been properly dispelled by the applicant.

Considered the rival submissions, perused the material brought on record and the enormity of the offence. No good ground is made out for bail.

Consequently, the instant bail application is rejected, at this stage.

It is made clear that observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Order Date :- 27.9.2019




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