SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sarwar And Another vs State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2020


?Court No. – 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 3882 of 2020

Applicant :- Sarwar And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants Sarwar and Wasim seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 253 of 2018, under Sections 302, 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Kuravali, District Mainpuri.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that Smt. Marsarat Jamal was married about seven years back with Aarif and it has been alleged in the first information report that Aarif used to torture his wife and beat her for dowry. He further stated as per the first information report that the father-in-law, Sarwar, mother-in-law, Praveen and Dewar, Wasim also used to torture the deceased for dowry and it is alleged that some time prior to the incident, a demand of rupees ten lacs was made for the purchase of a house. It has been mentioned in the first information report that due to the non-fulfilment of this demand, Smt Marsarat Jamal was done to death on 1.5.2018. He further argued that the applicant no. 1 is the father-in-law aged about 70 years and applicant no. 2 is the brother-in-law/Dewar living separately regarding which an averment has been made in paragraph 15 which is supported by the copy of the ration card annexed therein. He further argues that there was never any demand of dowry from the side of applicants from the deceased.The demand of dowry has come in light for the first time when the present first information report was lodged. He next argues that the demand of rupees ten lacs for purchasing of a house as alleged in the first information report itself was being demanded by the husband. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the order of co-accused Smt. Praveen, mother-in-law who has been granted bail vide order dated 7.3.2019 passed by another Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9818 of 2019. Lastly, he argued that in the present case, the trial Judge has framed charge upon the applicants under Section 498A, 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and not under Section 304-B IPC.

Per contra, learned AGA opposes the bail but could not dispute the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, without further any comments on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Let the applicants Sarwar and Wasim, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

i) The applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(V) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

The bail application is allowed.

Order Date :- 4.2.2020


(Samit Gopal,J.)



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


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