This chamber order disposed of an anticipatory bail application for an accused facing charges under 498-A, 307 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court dismissed the prayer finding no justification for bail despite the state not filing objections.
The anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In Chamber
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1449 of 2020
Applicant :- Naushad Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Romeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Javed Habib
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
This bail application is being disposed of as per the order dated 4.4.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice
Notice of this application was served on the Government Advocate on 31.1.2020 but as yet no objection has been filed on behalf of the State.Notice on Government Advocate is sufficient as per section 438(3) Cr.P.c. (U.P. Amendment).Hence this application is being finally decided.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Naushad Ahmad, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 307 I.P.C., and section 3/4 od Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station- Muradnagar, District- Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.
The applicant is husband of the informant and their marriage took place on 11.4.2013 as per Muslim Rites.There is allegation that dowry was given in marriage but applicant and his family members were not happy and on 3.3.2019 they tried to kill the informant by strangulation.The elder brother-in-law(Jeth) caused injury on her neck by knife.There is demand of Rs.20 lacs from the opposite party no.2 when he failed to fulfill the same. She was divorced by the applicant.The incident is alleged to have took place at Meerut but the injury report of the opposite party no.2 has been made at Ghaziabad.The First Information Report has been lodged on 31.3.2019 and medical examination took place on 30.3. 2019 a day ago.Opposite party no.2 travelled to Ghziabad from Meerut despite injury and allegedly got herself medically examined'
All the injuries on her person has been found to be simple and therefore offence under section 307 I.P.C. is not made out.Applicant has filed application for conjugal rights.
The court below while rejecting the anticipatory bail application has recorded the finding that number of cases of heinous nature are registered against the applicant 'There are eleven injuries on the body of the opposite party no.2 and injury nos. 1 and 2 have been caused by sharp edged weapon.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. The anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.6.2020 Atul kr. sri.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in a case alleged to involve dowry death and attempted murder.
Whether the location of the crime (Meerut) and the location of the Medical Examination (Ghaziabad) indicate inconsistency in the prosecution narrative.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Naushad Ahmad
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
