Allowed

Bansh Lal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2019BAIL/12487/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to three applicants falsely implicated in a dowry death case involving Sections 302, 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court emphasized the completion of evidence, lack of tampering risk, and undertakings given to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties each, attendance, no tampering with evidence, no delay in trial, and no unlawful activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12487 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Bansh Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Mishra,Sikandar B. Kochar

¶4

and

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23300 of 2018 Applicant :- Chameli Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sikandar B. Kochar

¶6

and

¶7

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46689 of 2018

¶8

Applicant :- Smt. Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rinki Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sikandar B. Kochar

¶9

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant and Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23300 of 2018 and Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46689 of 2018 today in the Court are taken on record.

¶11

All the three bail applications have arisen out of one and same Case Crime No.600 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 302 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act and are being decided by a common order.

¶12

Heard Shri Dileep Kumar and Shri Rajrshi Gupta, Advocate for applicant Bansh Lal, Shri Manish Tiwary, Advocate for Chameli Devi and Rinki Gupta for applicant Smt. Saroj, Shri Sikandar B. Kochar learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicants have been falsely implicated; that applicants Bansh Lal and Chameli Devi have been falsely implicated being Sasur and Sas of

¶14

deceased and Smt. Saroj has been falsely implicated being Jethani of deceased; that applicants never made any demand of dowry from deceased and never treated her with cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry; that common and general allegations regarding demand of dowry have been made against applicants were not beneficiary of alleged demand of dowry; that as per averments made in F.I.R. under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 307 I.P.C. lodged by Layak Singh at 4.00 p.m. on 8.9.2017, his sister Shashi, was married to co-accused Vijay in the year 2009 with huge dowry and expenses and was blessed with a daughter after 5 years of marriage and on 3.5.2017 she suddenly came her maika with her 4 years old daughter reporting that her in-laws have badly beaten her over demand of Rs.10.00 lakhs and SCORPIO Car despite fact that first informant had already transferred a plot in the name of deceased and daughter on 1st September, 2017 swelling on her face with injury in one eye were seen by first informant and on 7/8.9.2017 at 2.39 a.m. he got a phone call of applicant Bansh Lal reporting burn injuries sustained by Shashi and when he reached at her matrimonial home found her in serious condition who was stating that she has been put on fire after pouring kerosene by her husband, Sas, Sasur, Jeth & Jethani, he taken her to District Hospital where doctors, considering her serious condition referred to P.G.I, Saifai and she is under treatment; that death of deceased did take place on 10.9.2017 during treatment and on 8.9.2017 between 5.05 to 5.15 a.m. her dying declaration is alleged to have been recorded wherein she is alleged to have stated that at 2.00 a.m. in night when she was sleeping her Sas, Jeth, Jethani and Nanad poured kerosene on her and put her to fire as after 7 of years marriage they were demanding money and vehicle from her; that dying declaration at A-7 or SA-2 in bail application no.23300 of 2017 may not be relied in view of the fact that as per G.D. entry dated 8.9.2017 of P.S. Saifai district Etawah of 5.10 a.m. at SA-1 to second supplementary affidavit ward boy Yadram from P.G.I. Saifai approached P.S. Saifai and filed a memo for statement of Shashi deceased with 100% burns who was returned back and memo is being sent to S.D.M. Saifai through proper channel;

¶15

that in view of SA-1 recording of dying declaration in the meantime before Naib Tehsildar becomes doubtful and appears to have been prepared under influence of first informant; that the dying declaration is in contradiction to averments made in F.I.R.; that according to dying declaration deceased was sleeping at the time of incident and pouring of kerosene on sleeping lady as many as five persons and putting her on fire by all of them simultaneously is highly improbable; that Jithani Smt. Saroj was living separately with her husband and had no concern with deceased; that deceased appears to have committed suicide for the reasons best known to her and her husband and applicants may not be held responsible for her death; that applicants have no criminal history; that sessions trial is near conclusion and final arguments are being advanced before trial court; that since evidence has been completed, there may be no apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence by applicants; that applicants undertake that they will not get the final arguments in sessions trial adjourned on any ground whatsoever and will not delay the disposal of trial; that applicant Bansh Lal is in custody since 18.9.2017, Chameli Devi is in custody since 27.10.2107 and Applicant Smt. Saroj is in custody since 9.2.2018..

¶16

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that in view of dying declaration since no role was assigned to husband of deceased, he was exonerated; that trial is in progress and final arguments of parties are going on since 18.1.2019; that if applicants are released on bail they may make misuse of liberty of bail.

¶17

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, fact of completion of evidence before trial court 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.

¶18

Let the applicants Bansh Lal, Chameli Devi and Smt. Saroj be released on bail in Case Crime No.600 of 2017, under Sections 302, 498-A I.P.C.

¶19

and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Friends Colony, District Etawah, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicants 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 they are 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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

The trial court is directed not to adjourn final hearing of sessions trial and conclude trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any undue adjournment to either party.

¶25

Order Date :- 24.1.2019

¶26

Bansh Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bansh Lal 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

Maharaj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Satveer Vs State of U.P.

Sugeshwari Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mahsoob Vs State of U.P.

Chameli Devi Vs State of U.P.