SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Subhash vs State Of U.P. on 4 December, 2019


?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 51350 of 2019

Applicant :- Subhash

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar,Ankur Varshney

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Dwivedi

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Khushboo Kumari, learned counsel jointly filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, is taken on record.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged against 7 persons including the applicant. The applicant is not the family member of the husband of the deceased. He is said to be mediator of the marriage. He is not the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. He has not harassed or tortured to the deceased and has no concern with the alleged incident. There is general allegation against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to him. As per postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved. In viscera report Aluminium Phosphate poison has been found to the deceased. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. He has falsely been implicated in the present case due to being mediator of the marriage. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 8.9.2019.

Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with co-accused Santosh on 2.6.2019 and the deceased died on 5.9.2019 within 3 months of her marriage. The deceased died an unnatural death. Poison has been found to her in viscera report. The deceased was harassed and tortured for non fulfillment of demand of dowry by the applicant and other co-accused, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

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

Let the applicant Subhash involved in Case Crime No. 121 of 2019, under Sectionsection 498A, Section304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jahangirpur, District Bulandshahar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 evidence.

2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.

3. He shall 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 :- 4.12.2019




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