Dismissed

Hardev v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2019BAIL/19960/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19960 of 2016 for Hardev accused in Case Crime No. 94 of 2015 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Court rejected bail application as trial commenced and presumption against applicant remained unrebutted. Trial court directed to conclude trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; trial to be concluded within one year by lower court.

Hardev Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19960 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Hardev Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Mayank,Sushil Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Hardev seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 94 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kamasin, District Banda, during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.

¶7

It transpires from the record that marriage of the applicant namely Hardev was solemnized with Rakhi on 12.2.2013. However, after expiry of a period of two years and two months from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 12.5.2015 in which the wife of the applicant attempted to commit suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. Ultimately, the wife of the applicant succumbed to the poisonous substance consumed by her on 12.5.2013 itself. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on the same ay i.e. on 12.5.2015 not by any of the family members of the applicant or by the applicant himself, but by Ram Prasad, father of the deceased. The same was registered as Case Crime No. 94 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons were nominated as the named

¶8

accused namely Bhagwat Prasad, Hardev Prasad, Bhagwat Prasad's wife and Seetu, the nand of the deceased. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 12.5.2015. In the opinion of the panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. The post mortem upon the body of the deceased was conducted on the next day i.e. on 13.5.2015. In the opinion of the doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, no external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased. However, to ascertain cause of death of the deceased, viscera was preserved. Subsequently, the Chief Chemical Analyst has submitted the viscera report dated 11.6.2015, wherein it has been submitted that the deceased had consumed Aluminium Phosphide. The police upon completion of statutory investigation of the above mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter 12 of Cr. P. C. has submitted a charge sheet against three of the named accused Bhagawat Prasad, (father-in-law), Hardev Prasad, (husband) and Smt. Sudha, mother-in-law. The nand Sheetu has been excluded in the charge sheet. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge sheet dated 13.1.2016, cognizance was taken by Court concerned, vide cognizance taking order 24.2.2016. Thereafter, the case was committed to Court of Sessions. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application. However, Mr. Amit Daga submits that the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, S.T. No. 64 of 2016 (State vs. Hardev Prasad and others) under sections 498A, 304 B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kamasin, District Banda, came to be registered and is now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, District Banda. What has happened in the trial is not known to him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant is the husband, he is innocent and the applicant has been falsely implicated. He is, therefore, liable to be enlarged on bail. It is then submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has committed suicide as evident from the post mortem report, as no external or internal injury has been found on the body of the deceased. Lastly, it is urged that the accused is in jail since 6.1.2016. Considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and the death of the deceased has taken place in the house of the applicant. As such, the burden is upon the applicant himself in terms of Sections 106 and 113 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances in which the death has taken place. The presumption as standing against the applicant has not been discharged by the applicant upto this stage. Upon the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, it is urged by the learned A.G.A. that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and considering the fact that the trial has already commenced, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. The bail application of the applicant is rejected.

¶12

However, at this stage, it is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.

¶13

Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.

¶14

Order Date :- 31.7.2019 HSM

Hardev v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardev 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaista Yusuf Vs State of U.P. and Others

Bhupendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hoti Lal Vs State of U.P.

Ram Autar Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Kumar Raghav @ Vikki Vs State of U.P.