Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2019BAIL/22107/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the applicant's bail application in a case involving dowry death under IPC Sections 302 and 498-A. The court observed that the applicant had spent nearly four years in jail but found no good ground to grant bail. The court directed the trial court to expedite the trial within one year.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vineet Kumar Raghav @ Vikki Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22107 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Raghav @ Vikki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Hafeez Khan,Sachin Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Babu Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application for bail has been filed by the applicantVineet Kumar Raghav @ Vikki seeking his enlargement on bail in S. T. No.222 of 2016 (Vineet Kumar Raghav @ Vikki Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.576 of 2015 under Section 302under Sections 302, 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Chandausi, District-Sambhal during the pendency of the trial of the above mentioned case crime number.

¶7

From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Priyanka in February, 2008 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, after the expiry of a period of eight years and eight months, an unfortunate incident occurred on 28.10.2015, in which wife of the applicant, namely, Priyanka died at her matrimonial home. An F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid unfortunate incident was lodged on 28.10.2015 by Amit Kumar, the brother of the deceased, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0576 of 2015 under Sections 302, 498A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Chandausi, DistrictSambhal.

¶8

In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons, namely, Vineet Kumar

¶9

Raghav @ Vikki, (the husband), Kamini Devi (the mother-inlaw), Anshu Singh (Devar) and Devendra Singh (Jeth) of deceased were nominated as named accused. A perusal of the F.I.R. will further go to show that allegations with regard to demand of dowry and commission of cruelty upon deceased for demand of dowry have specifically been levelled. The postmortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 29.10.2015. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased, opined that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The Police upon completion of statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 19.01.2016 against against applicant but under Section 306 I.P.C. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by court concerned and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 222 of 2016 (Vineet Kumar Raghav @ Vikki Vs. State) came to be registered in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No.3, Moradabad. Though the bail application has been filed in the year 2016 but no affidavit has been filed bringing on record the subsequent events, which have taken place in the trial. Learned A.G.A. has filed a counter affidavit in Court toady, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit to the same.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been already charge-sheeted under Section 306 I.P.C. From the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that the applicant has abetted in the commission of crime by way of aid, conspiracy or instigation. He then submits that the applicant has been in Jail since 29.10.2015. He therefore submits that the applicant has already

¶11

undergone a period of three years and nine months of incarceration, as such, he is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased has died in her matrimonial house, i.e., the house of the applicant. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased is on the record at page 30 of the paper-book. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased found ligature mark and also external injuries on the body of the deceased The burden is upon the applicant himself to show his innocence. Since the applicant is not able to discharge the aforesaid burden, prima facie no case for bail is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that since the trial of the case has commenced, therefore, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the trial court to expedite the trial itself instead of considering the bail application of the applicant on merits. On the aforesaid factual premise, he submits that the applicant being the husband of the deceased, is not entitled to any indulgence of this Court. The bail application of the applicant is thus liable to be rejected.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record and the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find any good ground to allow the present application. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.

¶14

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 provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.

¶15

Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order

¶16

forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 31.7.2019 YK

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

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.

Hardev Vs State of U.P.

Ram Autar Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.