Allowed

Ramsevak Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2019BAIL/8752/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Misc. Bail Application regarding a dowry death charge, the court noted the applicant's lack of specific role, co-accused bail, and lack of criminal history. It held the case fit for bail, granting release on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ramsevak Sharma released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation, non-tampering, and no unlawful activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8752 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ramsevak Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for dowry death with general allegations being father-in-law of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. daughter of first informant Ranjana was married to Vijay Kishore on 25.6.2018 and since after marriage, she was being treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of one motorcycle and gold chain and on 25.9.2018 at 5:00 a.m., husband of deceased informed mother of deceased that her daughter has died, & after receiving information of her death, first informant along with his wife and others reached and seen that deceased was lying dead on bed; that as per post mortem report cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging; that no specific role has been assigned to applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating 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 applicant may not be beneficiary of one motorcycle and gold chain allegedly demanded, as dowry; that following dispute between husband and wife, deceased appears to have committed suicide; that co-accused Ramdulari has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.2.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5289 of 2019, copy of which has been produced for perusal and taken on record; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 23.10.2018.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicants further contends that due to inadvertent error name of applicant has been transcribed as 'Ramsevak' in bail application and affidavit, though in bail rejection order it has been transcribed as 'Ramsevak Sharma' and prayer of bail application may also be read accordingly, for which supplementary affidavit has been filed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed prayer of bail in this case of dowry death within 7 years of marriage.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering 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.

¶10

Let applicant Ramsevak Sharma be released on bail in Case Crime No.287 of 2018, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.Dannahar, District Mainpuri on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.3.2019 Tamang

Ramsevak Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsevak Sharma 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

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Aarti Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Alias Golu Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Farooq and 02 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Samseeran Vs State of U.P.