Allowed

Mohit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2019BAIL/9601/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed by Mohit accused under dowry death sections. Court dismissed strong prosecution opposition and granted bail emphasizing the applicant's lack of specific criminal role and complicity assessment at this stage warranting release. Bail granted on bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail under a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9601 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit 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 of his wife; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged on 7.7.2018 by first informant, his daughter Kanchan was married to Mohit in the year 2014 and out of the wedlock one daughter namely Sandhya was born, who is aged about 2 ½ years and on 30.6.2018 in the evening, there was quarrel between husband and father-in-law of deceased, when she intervened and her father-in-law after pouring petrol on her, put her on fire and she was admitted to hospital with burn injuries and died on 6.7.2018 at about 9:00 p.m. in Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College & Research Centre Moradabad (T.M.U.) and after marriage despite fulfilment of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and she buffalo by first informant demands and cruelty were continued; that no specific role has been assigned to applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of alleged demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that in F.I.R. applicant has not been assigned with specific role of pouring petrol or putting his wife on fire and by way of improvement in his additional statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. first informant and other witnesses have stated that she was put on fire by both accused-persons and demand of Rs.50,000/- was made, as additional dowry; that in fact, the incident did take place in the night of 29.6.2018, when applicant's wife sustained burn injuries, and he immediately rushed her to C.H.C. Chandausi through ambulance from where she was taken to Malhotra Nursing Home, Chandausi for better treatment and then referred to Moradabad, where she was treated upto 6.7.2018 and succumbed to burn injuries, which were only 30-32% at the time of her initial admission before C.H.C, Chandausi; that co-accused Prempal is the main culprit, as per prosecution case; that applicant has not committed dowry death of his wife; that case of applicant is distinguishable from

¶7

co-accused Prempal; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 7.7.2018.

¶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 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 Mohit be released on bail in Case Crime No.169 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Baniyather, District Sambhal (Bheem Nagar) 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 :- 25.3.2019 Tamang

Mohit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit 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

Satya Pal Vs State of U.P.

Ambika Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Mangal Vs State of U.P.

Lal Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Ramu @ Ram Kishan Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Vs State of U.P.