SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Riyasat vs State Of U.P. on 9 January, 2020


?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 1393 of 2020

Applicant :- Riyasat

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Sri Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant,learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured the deceased.The FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged against nine persons including the applicant making general allegation. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. As per postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained therefore, the viscera was preserved. The viscera report has not been received. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. The deceased has committed suicide herself.The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the husband of the deceased. Co-accused Smt. Hajra, mother-in-law of the deceased has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 57401 of 2019, therefore the applicant is also entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 18.7.2019.

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased died within one and a half years of her marriage an unnatural death. The deceased was harassed and tortured due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Riyasat involved in Case Crime No. 628 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and 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 evidences.

2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate with the trial.

3. The applicant will 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 :- 9.1.2020/A.



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