Allowed

Vijay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2019BAIL/11157/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application in a dowry death case. The applicant contested the false implication of his role, contrasting his actions with the deceased's husband. The Single Judge found it a fit case for bail without commenting on merits, granting release on bond and sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11157 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh,Harsha Pandey,Harshit Pandey,Munna Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated for committing dowry death with general allegations being devar of the deceased; that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating the 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 as per averments made in FIR lodged by Prakash Chandra, his daughter Mamta was married to Sudhir Kumar on 25.2.2018 and since after marriage was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and he made payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- at two times and on 31.10.2018 at 9.00 p.m. Mamta made a phone call crying for help and thereafter her phone was cut and when first informant was on way to her matrimonial house, he got a phone call of applicant asking for coming to hospital where he found his daughter dead in a pool of blood; that real fact is that deceased was living separately with her husband in a flat in Pocket-7, Kendriya Vihar, Noida while applicant and other members of family were living in another flat in Sector 82, Noida though both the flats were adjoining to each other; that on fateful night during walk after dinner deceased slipped from roof and sustained multiple injuries and she was immediately rushed to hospital by applicant and his sister Komal and upon admission at Yatharth Wellness Super-Speciality Hospital, Noida she was declared dead and police was informed; that inquest report of deceased states that she died due to injuries sustained upon falling from roof and first informant is one of the punch witness of inquest report; that eight ante mortem injuries, mentioned in postmortem report, were sustained by deceased due to falling from roof; that subsequently first informant moved an application to S.S.P. Noida on 11.1.2019 with affidavit by changing his version and his statement under Section 164,

¶7

Cr.P.C. was recorded by magistrate concerned wherein he exonerated Tara Devi, Hema and Gudia and assigned applicant only with the role of teasing deceased along with her husband; that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with husband of the deceased; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 6.11.2018.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the 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.

¶10

Let the applicant Vijay be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0794 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, I.P.C., P.S. Phase2, District Gautam Budd Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the 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 :- 25.3.2019 T. Sinha

Vijay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay 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

Satya Pal Vs State of U.P.

Ambika Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Mangal Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Lal Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Ramu @ Ram Kishan Vs State of U.P.