Allowed

Sanjay Kumar @ Vimal Kant v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2019BAIL/12519/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application alleging dowry death and death by train accident, the single judge acknowledged co-accused bail and granted bail to the applicant despite a presumption of dowry death, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

Sanjay Kumar @ Vimal Kant Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12519 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar @ Vimal Kant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,Piyush 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 of his wife; 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 Shakuntala Devi on 28.5.2018 at about 9.00 p.m., her daughter Kavita was married to applicant about two years back and since after marriage she was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.50,000/- and after committing maarpeet with her she was ousted from his home due to which she had taken such a step and her dead body was found on railway track at Meja road; that applicant neither committed maarpeet with deceased nor ousted her from his home nor caused any abetment or instigation to her for committing suicide; that real fact is that deceased used to go for attending call of nature across the railway track as a matter of routine and on fateful day of 28.5.2018 in the morning when she had gone to attend call of nature along with her infant girl child aged about 4-5 months, she appears to have met with train accident resulting in multiple injury to applicant's wife as well as his infant daughter, who sustained multiple injuries over their body and head of infant daughter was separated from neck; that postmortem report of applicant's wife and daughter states that their death did take place due to haemorrhage and shock on account of ante mortem injuries and description of ante mortem injuries mentioned in two postmortem reports filed at Annexures- 3 & 4 shows that they may be sustained in train accident; that body of deceased was found on railway track upon information given by Lineman; that applicant did not cause dowry death of his wife and did not commit death of his innocent daughter; that co-

¶7

accused Smt. Phool Kali (mother-in-law) and Radhey Krishna Chamar (father-in-law) have been granted bail by other Benches of this Court vide orders dated 15.11.2018 and 10.1.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.42255 of 2018 and 896 of 2019, copies filed at Annexure-6; 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 8.7.2018.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that death of deceased has taken place within two years of marriage and there is presumption of dowry death.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment; grant of bail to co-accused 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 Sanjay Kumar @ Vimal Kant be released on bail in Case Crime No. 269 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201, 120B, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Meja, District Allahabad, 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 :- 28.3.2019 T. Sinha

Sanjay Kumar @ Vimal Kant v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar @ Vimal Kant 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

Ramnath Vs State of U.P.

Rampal Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Anisha Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kali Vs State of U.P.

Pintu @ Devendra Prajapati Vs State of U.P.