Allowed

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2022/11463/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to an applicant accused of dowry death and cruelty. The court accepted the suicide theory, noted the lack of specific dowry demands against him, and ordered parity with co-accused family members already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including regular appearance and non-interference with evidence.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11463 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar,Mohammed Askari Ali,Mohit Kumar,Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui,Trideep Narayan Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State and in reply thereto rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant are on the record.

¶7

Heard Shri Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Veerbhan Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The applicant, Ajay Kumar , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 448 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur.

¶9

As per the F.I.R. marriage of daughter of complainant was solemnized with the applicant on 27.04.2020, but the in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they used to make demand of additional dowry, and on account of non fulfillment thereof the daughter of complainant was meted to torture and mental agony and on 19.10.2020 the complainant has been informed that she has died, when the complainant reached at the matrimonial house of her daughter he found that dead body of her daughter was lying on a bed and there was a mark of injury on her neck.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the husband of the deceased and has falsely been implicated in the case. No such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place. Neither any demand was made by the in-laws of the deceased including the applicant, nor any complaint was ever made, after the marriage or prior to the date of incident. The relations between applicant and the deceased were cordial, except some minor disputes which always happen in every husband and wife. The deceased was a short tempered lady, she was always insisting her husband to live separately from his parents which was refused by the applicant. The applicant is a labour class

¶11

man and was earning his livelihood anyhow and was trying to satisfy his wife, but his wife never satisfied, she became under mental pressure, and ultimately, on 19.10.2020 she committed suicide by hanging herself.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on the basis of a false and concocted story narrated in the F.I.R. the applicant and his other family members have been implicated in the case, wherein general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons, even same allegation has been made by the complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the inquest of the deceased no other mark of injury was found on the person of the deceased, except one ligature mark over her neck. As per the postmortem report of the deceased cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It has also been submitted that except one ligature mark of size 28 c.m. x 2.0 c.m. all around the neck no other injury was found on the person of the deceased, which shows that deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. In support of his argument learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the extract of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, wherein definition of hanging has been described and as per the postmortem report of the deceased it is identical to the definition of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since as per the Modi's Jurisprudence and as per the postmortem report nature of injury on the neck of the deceased are same, therefore, it is a clear case of hanging and not of murder, and on this ground the applicant may be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that apart from the applicant who is the husband of the deceased, the informant also levelled allegations against Rajesh and Aniruddha, who are elder brother of applicant, Dharamdutt, who is the father of applicant and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the applicant and were named in the F.I.R., but the Investigating Officer, after due investigation does not find any allegation against Rajesh and his wife and their names were dropped from the chargesheet. The charge sheet was submitted against the applicant, his father Dharm Dutt and his elder brother, Aniruddha. The father and elder brother have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 26.02.2021 and 25.08.2021 passed in Bail Nos. 2576 of 2021 and 2818 of 2021. It has been argued that the case of the applicant is not on the worse footing

¶16

than that of the co-accused, who are father and brother and have been granted bail, whereas, allegations made in the F.I.R. are similar and no specific allegation was made therein against the applicant or any other accused persons regarding demand of dowry or causing death of the deceased.

¶17

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 19.10.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no blinking chances of any early conclusion of trial as till date not a single witness has been examined.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer for bail of applicant submitted that the death of the deceased had occurred within seven months of her marriage and applicant is the husband of the deceased, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging; general allegations have been made against all the family members of the applicant; no specific allegation has been made against the applicant regarding demand of dowry or killing the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and except one ligature mark around the neck of the deceased no other injury was found on the person of the deceased; and as per Modi's Jurisprudence it appears a case of suicide committed by hanging and not of the murder or strangulation and the coaccused against whom similar allegation was made, the father and elder brother of the applicant were granted bail by this Court, thus the applicant is also entitled for parity and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view

¶20

that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant, Ajay Kumar , involved in Case Crime No. 448 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶23

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶24

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶25

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶26

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶27

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶29

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶30

(8) 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

¶31

declaration of such verification in writing.

¶32

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶33

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶34

Order Date :- 25.7.2022 Mustaqeem

¶35

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.07.29 17:53:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Sagar Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Ors.

Dukhiram Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bale @ Vikas Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Anuj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Alok Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Shankar Vs State of U.P.