Allowed

Raghubar Dayal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2019BAIL/11038/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, the court recorded the applicant's contention of being falsely implicated and denied role in dowry demand. Without commenting on merits, the court found it a fit case for bail subject to standard conditions, including personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non-tampering, and no unlawful activities.

Raghubar Dayal Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11038 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Raghubar Dayal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for dowry death with general allegations being father-in-law of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by Rajesh Kumar on 4.8.2018, his daughter Neha was married to Deepak on 13.5.2016 and since after marriage, she was being treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of vehicle and Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and on 4.8.2018 he received an information that his daughter was hanged to death; that no specific role has been assigned to applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating deceased with cruelty for nonfulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for nonfulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant may not be beneficiary of vehicle and Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly demanded, as dowry; that applicant was living separately and had disowned his son Deepak and daughter-in-law Neha through publication in local newspaper Dainik Jagran (Arth) Jagran dated 21.3.2018, due to their bad behaviour and quarrel between them every now and then; that as per post mortem report cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging; that following quarrel between husband and wife, deceased appears to have committed suicide, as mentioned in para 7 of affidavit given in support of bail application; that applicant did not cause dowry death of deceased; that applicant had obtained order of staying his arrest on 20.8.2018, copy filed at Annexure No.9; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 18.2.2019.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail in this case of dowry death within 7 years of marriage.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering complicity of accused, severity of punishment as

¶9

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.

¶10

Let applicant Raghubar Dayal be released on bail in Case Crime No.952 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Baghpat, District Baghpat on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 14.3.2019 Tamang

Raghubar Dayal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghubar Dayal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udaiveer @ Baba Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Shankar Gond Vs State of U.P.

Archana Vs State of U.P.

Gorakh Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sabira Vs State of U.P.