SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinod Dubey vs State Of U.P. on 14 January, 2020


?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 2166 of 2020

Applicant :- Vinod Dubey

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shukla

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Sri Anand Patii Tiwari, learned counsel 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 applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The FIR has been lodged against 9 persons including the applicant making general allegation. No specific role has been assigned to him. The applicant has neither harassed or tortured to the deceased nor made any demand of additional dowry. The deceased died due to burn injuries. There is no dying declaration of the deceased. At the time of alleged incident the applicant was living separate from the deceased and her husband. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of husband of the deceased. The co-accused Nirmala Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased has already been released on bail by this court vide order dated 9.1.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1288 of 2020, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 6.11.2019.

Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that 100% burn has been found on the body of the deceased. The incident has taken place in the house of applicant. The deceased was harassed and tortured by the applicant and other co-accused for non fulfillment of demand of dowry and the deceased died an unnatural death within 2 and 1/2 years of her marriage. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, he 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 Vinod Dubey involved in Case Crime No. 666 of 2019, under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Ajitmal, District Auraiya 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 :- 14.1.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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