SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Satendra vs State Of U.P. on 19 September, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 76

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 37406 of 2019

Applicant :- Satendra

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Pathak

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ladlee Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against Satyendra, Girish, father-in-law (Mahesh) and mother-in-law of the deceased alleging that marriage of deceased (Meera), sister of the omplainant, was solmenized with Satyendra in the year 2015 and on 5.12.2015 for demand of dowry, they killed Meera (deceased), sister of the complainant. Cause of death was found hanging.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in jail since 17.2.2016 (three and half years) having no criminal history. There is no possibility to get this case decided in near future due to heavy workload in the trial court. There is no independent witness/eye witness account and in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that deceased was died within two years of marriage by unnatural death in the house of the applicant (husband). Presumption under Sections 113B and Section106 of the Evidence Act will lie against the applicant. The applicant is the main accused, who had killed his wife for demand of dowry. Therefore, his bail application is liable to be rejected.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, gravity of offence, without entering into the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected at this stage in Case Crime No. 335 of 2015 (S.T. No. 205 of 2016), under Sections 498A, , 304B/34, 302/34 SectionI.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal.

It is expected from the trial court to decide the case of the applicant expeditiously according to Section 309 Cr.P.C. on day to day basis, if there is no legal impediment.

D.M. S.P./S.S.P,- Sambhal are directed to ensure the presence of the witnesses summoned before the court below. The learned District Judge, Sambhal is also directed to monitor the case on monthly basis in the Monitoring Cell.

The court concerned is also directed to send a detail report after every three months showing the reason therein why the case is not being decided, which shall be kept on record.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to D.M. S.P./S.S.P,-Sambhal as well as to the court concerned within three days for compliance.

Order Date :- 19.9.2019

OP

 

 

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