Allowed

Santosh Kumar Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2021BAIL/14677/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application regarding an FIR for dowry death under Sections 498A IPC and 498A D.P. Act. The court granted bail considering the case's dual possibility of suicide or dowry death, the applicant's 20-month detention, and co-accused remand.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation in trial, non-tampering with evidence, and lawful conduct.

Santosh Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14677 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bindu Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the informant are virtually connected through video conferencing and learned A.G.A. is personally present.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Santosh Kumar Kushwaha with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Windhamganj, District Sonbhadra.

¶8

The first information report version is that the deceased was married with the accused applicant in the year 2015 and by their wedlock one daughter born. The husband and his family members used to demand dowry and they used to harass the deceased on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. On 08.10.2018, the deceased was found hanging and the informant suspected that the accused persons killed her because of non fulfillment of the demand of dowry.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused-applicant is the husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There was no such demand of dowry nor there was any harassment of the deceased. The fact is that the deceased was demanding a mobile phone because she was in the habit of talking with someone

¶10

else on mobile, therefore, quarrel used to take place between the husband and wife and for that reason the deceased has committed suicide out of depression and frustration. The fact that the accused and the deceased has a daughter out of their wedlock sows that there relationship was normal. It has also been pointed out that several witnesses of the locality were examined and they have also stated that quarrel used to take place because the deceased was in the habit of talking with someone else. The accused-applicant is prepared to furnish the surety and bond and is giving undertaking that he will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant has been in jail since 08.10.2019, hence, he is entitled to bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. He has further submitted that after investigation, the police has already filed charge sheet in the matter. It has been submitted that the death of the deceased was taken place under the suspicious circumstance within seven years of the marriage and there is allegation of demand of dowry from the informant side, hence, the accused-applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶12

In reply to the said argument learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the officer who was preparing the inquest report has stated that the dead body was found hanging by the saree which the deceased was wearing in a closed room and after breaking out the window, the door was opened and then

¶13

the dead body was recovered. From the said room an alive girl child was also found, therefore, it has been submitted that it shows that the deceased has committed suicide and the version of the first information report that she has been killed by the accused-applicant and his family members is false.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that there is both side possibility that the present incident may be the case of suicide and also may be the case of dowry death and these facts will be required to be established at the time of evidence. The accused-applicant has been in jail from the last 20 months and other two co-accused have already been released on bail. The girl child is living with the family of the husband, hence, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the 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 applicant 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.6.2021 sailesh

Santosh Kumar Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Kushwaha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Man Singh Vs State of U.P.

Anand Bodh Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P.

Trimal Vs State of U.P.

Lalmati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P.