Allowed

Deepu @ Prabhat v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019BAIL/9925/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant Deepu @ Prabhat in a case of alleged dowry death, noting that the death occurred at the wife's natal home and no specific role was assigned to him regarding dowry demand or cruelty, despite the severity of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Deepu @ Prabhat released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9925 of 2019 Applicant :- Deepu @ Prabhat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶3

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

¶4

Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for committing dowry death of his wife with general allegations being husband of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged on 28.8.2018 by Shiv Nath Singh Bhadauria, his daughter Priyanka was married to applicant on 20.6.2017 and since after marriage, she was being treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and on 26.8.2018 his son-in-law came to his house along with his daughter and respectable persons of family were talking for reconciliation of matter and after dinner at about 8:30 p.m. everybody left for sleeping over roof after seeing applicant and deceased at their room, at about 12:00 in night, applicant came at the roof disclosing that deceased is not speaking and when they come down, found multiple abrasions on neck of deceased, who was being treated with cruelty by her in-laws; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that undisputedly death of deceased has taken place in her maika ; that it is wrong to say that applicant fetched deceased to her maika and caused her dowry death in her maika ; that on fateful day applicant was not at all present in maika of deceased, rather she had gone on the occasion of Rakshabandhan and on 28.8.2018 applicant was called by his father-in-law and upon his arrival he was taken into custody, followed by lodging of false F.I.R.; that in post mortem report cause of death has been ascertained as asphyxia due to 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 has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 30.8.2018.

¶5

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

¶6

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.

¶7

Let applicant Deepu @ Prabhat be released on bail in Case Crime No.658 of 2018, S.T. No.397 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶8

(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.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 Tamang

Deepu @ Prabhat v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu @ Prabhat 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

Brij Behari and 03 Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Gyanwati Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meera Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Haseena Vs State of U.P.

Malti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sahodara Devi Vs State of U.P.