SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sonu @ Shailendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 12 July, 2019


?Court No. – 74

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 13306 of 2019

Applicant :- Sonu @ Shailendra Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.367 of 2017, under Sections 498A, Section304B I.P.C. and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur.

Urge made on behalf of the applicant is confined to the ambit that in this case, the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The marriage took place in the year 2013 and the victim was not happy with the applicant on account of fact that he was employed in U.A.E. and he came to India in the month of November, 2016, on one year recess, during which the victim was carrying 29 weeks pregnancy and a long and durable treatment was also given to the victim. It so happened that while cooking the food, the victim was burnt by fire accidentally and she was taken to the hospital where treatement was given when she died.

It has been further added that no dowry demand was raised by the applicant. The mother of the deceased was also present at the time of preparation of the inquest and no objection was raised by the mother of the deceased. However, the first information report was subsequently lodged against the applicant with false allegations. The applicant had no motive to commit the offence in question. 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 04.10.2017.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in this case, admittedly the incident took place on 22.09.2017 around 2:00 p.m. and the victim was 96% burn and as to how and why she could not be saved at that point of time and percentage of burning indicates almost whole body. There is specific allegation regarding the dowry demand and cruelty being perpetrated upon the deceased. The applicant being husband is presumed to rebut the presumption created under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in view of fact that as per allegation and record of the case each ingredient of dowry death elaborated under Section 304B I.P.C. stands fully against the accused.

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.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceeding of the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before it, if there is no legal impediment in its way.

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

Order Date :- 12.7.2019




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