Dismissed

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2019BAIL/46136/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application was filed challenging the validity of a dying declaration on grounds of inconsistent timings and conflicting FIR allegations regarding the victim's state. The Court found the discrepancies insubstantial, upheld the dying declaration, and rejected the bail plea due to the serious nature of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Bail application filed by Ajay Kumar in Crime No.332 of 2018 is rejected.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46136 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Radhey Shyam Maurya learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.332 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Phoolpur, District-Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

For the purposes of evaluating the prayer for grant of bail, the Court principally takes into consideration the dying declaration which was recorded before the Magistrate. That declaration is assailed on the ground of the allegations made in the first information report as well as the statement of the father of the deceased made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to learned counsel for the applicant although in the first information report it is alleged that when the family members of the deceased arrived, she had already passed away, in his statement under Section 161 he states that the victim was alive at the time when her dying declaration was recorded by the concerned Magistrate. The dying declaration is also assailed on the ground of the time which is ascribed therein. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the declaration firstly places the time of its recordal to 11.20 P.M. whereas in the latter part of that declaration, time has been mentioned as 11.20 P.M.. According to learned counsel for the applicant there is an evident over

¶8

writing in the latter part of the dying declaration. The Court finds itself unable to sustain either of these two submissions for the following reasons.

¶9

Firstly the perceived inconsistency which is sought to be highlighted from the allegations made in the first information report and the statement recorded under Section 161 pales into insignificance in light of the dying declaration which is recorded. Insofar as the issue of different timings having been ascribed therein, the Court notes that the signatures have been appended in the latter part and they clearly show the time as 11.30 A.M.. These signatures have been appended by the attending persons as well as the concerned Magistrate who has again thereafter noted the time of 11.30 A.M.. In that view of the matter merely because at the top of the dying declaration the time has been inadvertently mentioned as 11.20 P.M. does not detract from the validity of the declaration made and recorded. The Court notes that in the dying declaration itself the victim has unequivocally asserted that she was doused with kerosene oil by the applicant and thereafter set on fire. In that view of the matter, the Court finds no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶10

The bail application is consequently rejected .

¶11

Order Date :- 3.12.2019 faraz

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar 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

Lalit Kumar Pandey Alias Yuvraj Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Pal Vs State of U.P.

Shobi @ Azam Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Akash @ Samrat Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep @ Raghu Pasi Vs State of U.P.