SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Surjeet vs State Of U.P. on 29 November, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 52810 of 2019

Applicant :- Surjeet

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh,Jai Prakash Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is husband 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. As per postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased could not ascertained, therefore the viscera was preserved. In viscera report oregano phosphorus insecticide poison has been found to the deceased. The deceased consumed poison herself. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. It has further been submitted that during the trial the statements of Ram Niwas (father), Kuldeep (brother), Dhan Devi (mother), Naina @ Jyoti (bhabhi) and Pushpendra (brother-in-law) of the deceased have been recorded as P.W. 1 to P.W. 5. In their statements the above witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. P.W. 1 Ram Niwas, P.W. 2 Kuldeep, P.W. 3 Dhan Devi and P.W. 4 Naina @ Jyoti have clearly stated that there was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured the deceased. The above witnesses have been declared hostile. P.W. 5 Pusshpendra is a witness of inquest and in his cross examination, he has also stated that the deceased has not made any complaint against in-laws. It has further been submitted that there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 12.4.2018.

Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer 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 Surjeet involved in Case Crime No. 87 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, SectionIPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sidhpura, District Kasganj 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 :- 29.11.2019

A.

 

 

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