The Delhi High Court (implied by judge list context or generic) granted bail to an applicant accused of dowry death who argued he had no role in the cruelty or demand of dowry and lived separately. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on merits.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11022 of 2019
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi,Dwijendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for dowry death with general allegations being Jeth of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by Rajaram on 12.8.2018, his daughter Sushila was married to Digamber about 03 years back and since after marriage, she was being treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of Motorcycle and Television and today on 12.8.2018 they committed her dowry death and thrown her body near the house of first informant and were caught by villagers at the time of fleeing away from spot; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that no specific role has been assigned to applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant may not be beneficiary of Motorcycle and Television allegedly demanded, as dowry; that as per post mortem report cause of death of deceased could not be ascertained and viscera was persevered and as per viscera report at Annexure No.4 aluminium phosphide poison was found in parts of her viscera; that deceased was taken to doctor by first informant, as a case of snake bite, but since she had died, doctor had refused to provide medicine; that applicant is working at Gujarat and was living separately, while deceased was living at village in Mirzapur; that it appears that due to matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, deceased was either administered poisonous substance by her husband or consumed herself, for which husband may be responsible; that case of applicant is distinguishable from husband of deceased; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 13.11.2018.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed prayer of bail in this case of dowry death within 7 years of marriage.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant Vinod Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No.220 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Lalganj, District Mirzapur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 14.3.2019 Tamang
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail is a fit case for the applicant falsely implicated in dowry death allegations.
Whether the applicant undertook not to misuse the liberty of bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod Kumar
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
