Allowed

Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2019BAIL/48138/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj, father-in-law of deceased, in a case alleging dowry harassment under 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC. Despite allegations of torture and burn injury, bail was allowed on personal and two sureties bond, noting lack of specific role assigned to applicant and absence of dying declaration.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with conditions against tampering, intimidating witnesses, and appearing in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48138 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Balram Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured the deceased. It has further been submitted that there is general allegation against the applicant, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Some dispute has taken place in between the husband and the wife and the same was settled in between them in police mediation. She herself moved an application that matter has been settled in between them. She further mentioned that she does not want to proceed any further against her husband. The deceased died due to burn injury. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. There is no dying declaration of the deceased. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the husband of the deceased. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident and has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 13.5.2019.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per post mortem report 90-95 % burn injury have been found on the body of the deceased. After the incident the applicant and other co accused have not admitted the deceased in any hospital and they kept her in the house for 12 hours thereafter they admitted her in a hospital where she died. The applicant and other co accused harassed and tortured the deceased due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry. The deceased died an unnatural death within four years of her marriage due to burn injury, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of

¶10

the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj involved in Case Crime No.07 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Ughaiti District Budaun be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and he will cooperate with the trial.

¶14

The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶15

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.12.2019

¶17

Gss

Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj 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

Ramu Parihar Vs State of U.P.

Manpal Vs State of U.P.

Shivkumari Vs State of U.P.

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Diwakar Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra and Another Vs State of U.P.