Dismissed

Maikulal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2021BAIL/20785/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the bail application in a case involving the unnatural death of a married woman, holding that prima facie no case for bail was made out due to the nature of the offence and questioning the applicant's burden to explain the cause of death, directing expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to be completed expeditiously within six months.

Maikulal Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20785 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Maikulal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Let the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State be taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 130 of 2018, under Sections 323, 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, PS - Sehramau North, District - Pilibhit.

¶8

The FIR of this incident was lodged by the complainant about unnatural death of his sister aged about 19 years. Her marriage was solemnized with present applicant - Maikulal in March, 2018. Her in-laws were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and they were demanding additional dowry from the complainant and her sister. Later on, she was done to death on 19.06.2018.

¶9

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the deceased had died due to hanging herself and it was a love marriage of the applicant with deceased. It is also argued that the applicant is in jail since 21.06.2018 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He argues that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulatioin and ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased, which reads as under:-

¶11

"A transverse ligature mark size 17 cm x 1.5 cm present anteriorly & both lateral side of the neck below the thyroid cartilage. Ligature mark situated 8 cm from (L) ear lobule and 7 cm. from chin & 6 cm from (R) lobule of ear.

¶12

On opening subcutaneous tissue underneath the ligature mark as Echymosed."

¶13

Further submission by learned AGA representing State is that she has died in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage and she died due to strangulation. The burden to explain the reason as to how the deceased died has not been properly discharged by the applicant and, prima facie, he is guilty of committing the murder of the complainant's sister.

¶14

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention of the applicant and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at

¶15

this stage, prima facie, no case for bail is made made out and the bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶16

The bail application is rejected with a direction to the trial court to complete the trial of this case expeditiously say within six months from today.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.11.2021 LBY

Maikulal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maikulal 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

Sunny Yadav @ Ahmad Husain Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vind Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonpal Vs State of U.P.

Nauman Vs State of U.P.

Akash @ Laloo Vs State of U.P. and Another