SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rishipal vs State Of U.P. on 13 September, 2019


?Court No. – 74

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 23390 of 2019

Applicant :- Rishipal

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P and perused the material available on record.

By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.785 of 2017, under Sections 498A, Section304B I.P.C. and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Transport Nagar, District Meerut.

Urge made on behalf of the applicant is confined to the ambit that in this case, no dowry demand, whatsoever, was raised by the applicant. The applicant is former husband of the deceased and he had no occasion to commit the offence in question. As per statement of the informant Smt. Laxmi Devi, mother of the deceased Sonia, there is no detail as to how she came to know about the incident which took place on 13.11.2017. Fact is that the marriage in question was love marriage and there is no point for raising any demand of dowry from the informant. In fact, it so happened that some compromise was reached between the parties. Both the husband and the wife were separated from each other prior to the present incident. Thereafter, the death in question occurred for which the applicant being former husband of the deceased cannot be held responsible. 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 02.03.2017.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that in this case, testimony on record is reflective of fact that the applicant was very much seen coming out of the house where the deceased was done to death and it cannot be said that presence of the applicant on the spot stands negated by the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as argued and put by the learned counsel for the applicant. The various statement brought on record as appearing on page no.51A of the present bail application profusely speak about involvement of the applicant in the very alleged incident and statement of the informant cannot be read in isolation with other attendant facts and circumstances of the case. Moreso, various papers brought on record are indicative of fact that some manipulation in the thumb impression of the deceased Sonia as appearing at a particular place than was to be impressed at proper place in the compromise deed has been made. Likewise manipulation in the signature as appearing on the petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been made which aspect also indicates dubious circumstances because the deceased used to mark only thumb impression.

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.

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

Order Date :- 13.9.2019




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