Allowed

Rambachan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2019BAIL/13128/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a charge sheeted dowry death case. The court found it a fit case for bail considering the severity of punishment and release of co-accused, subject to specific conditions regarding cooperation and non-interference with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of trial cooperation and non-interference.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13128 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rambachan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Dinesh Mishra 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 dowry death with general allegations being father-in-law 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 Bhonda Yadav on 3.10.2018, his daughter Amrita was married to Omprakash about five years back and since after marriage she was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.50,000/- as dowry and her dowry death was committed on 2.10.2018 at about 6.00-7.00 p.m. after pouring kerosene and putting her on fire; that real fact is that deceased was caught with fire at the time of cooking food and when her husband as well as applicant came to know, they tried their best to extinguish fire in which attempt they also sustained multiple burn injuries, as mentioned in their medical examination reports as Annexure-6; that deceased was taken to hospital but due to extensive burn injuries she died; that as per postmortem report her death did take place due to burn injuries; that applicant never made any demand of dowry from deceased nor put her on fire; that there may be quarrel between deceased and her husband prior to incident in question; that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with husband of the deceased; that co-accused Sughar Yadav (Devar) has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.3.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12024 of 2019, copy of which has been produced for perusal and is taken on record; 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 8.10.2018.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

Let the applicant Rambachan be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0185 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Mahewaghat, District Kaushambi, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶10

(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.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 1.4.2019 T. Sinha

Rambachan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambachan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanchan Vs State of U.P.

Bittu Pinniwala Vs State of U.P.

Maatrani @ Matrani and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Arti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Muralidhar Vs State of U.P.

Damodar Singh Vs State of U.P.