SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vivek Singh vs State Of U.P. on 3 February, 2020


?Court No. – 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 4515 of 2020

Applicant :- Vivek Singh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Kant Rai

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Vivek Singh seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 139 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, 326, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act in alternate Section 302 IPC, registered at P.S. Malwan, District Fatehpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized on 25.5.2015 whereas the incident in question is alleged to have taken place on 17.5.2018. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit and dying declaration recorded by Niab Tehsildar, Annexure-4 to the affidavit. Further, he places both the statements and argues that there are material contradictions so far as it relates to the role of the applicant, who is husband insomuch so that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the husband has been named along with other persons and they have been stated to have poured kerosene on the deceased and later on, in the same statement, the husband is stated to have pushed the father-in-law who had come for trying to extinguish the fire and in the dying declaration, the role of pouring kerosene has been assigned to the mother-in-law whereas the deceased stated that the husband and other family members used to continuously beat her. He further states that husband was not even present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident.

Per contra, learned AGA opposes the bail and argued that Smt. Archana died on 1.6.2018, husband has been assigned specific role in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even on perusal of the dying declaration recorded by Niab Tehsildar, it is clear that there are serious allegations of torture and beating of the deceased. He further argued that the deceased received superficial to deep thermal burn of approximately 75%. The applicant, being the husband, was duty bound to discharge his onus regarding the death of his wife in his house. The death as occurred within three years of marriage in an unnatural way, therefore, the present bail application is liable to be dismissed.

Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 3.2.2020


(Samit Gopal,J.)



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