Allowed

Rahul Swarnkar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2022/11768/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Rahul Swarnkar challenging conviction in a dowry death case. The High Court granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. without examining merits, though directing trial conclusion within one year.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rahul Swarnkar released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court appearance and non-filng of adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11768 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Swarnkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Atul Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Kashyap

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR No.295 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition/ POCSO Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶6

It is alleged that the deceased, Saubhaya Verma got married with the accused-applicant on 17.1.2019 and at the time of marriage, the family members of the deceased gave Rs.3,00,000/- cash, furniture, value of Rs.1,25,000/-, one Hundai Eon Car, one gold chain and gold ring, value of Rs.75,000/-, two demand drafts, Rs.39,000/- each, and clothes, value of Rs.15,000/-. After a year of marriage, accusedapplicant and other accused started pressurizing the deceased to sell the two bigha land situated at Village Sarsaundi, District Barabanki. The deceased was not willing to dispose of her land and, therefore, the accused-applicant and other accused started torturing and harassing the deceased for disposing of the land. It is also alleged that the accused-applicant and other accused also tortured the deceased as she was a divorcee and got married with the accused-applicant. It is said that on the date of incident, all the accused assaulted the deceased and killed her.

¶7

Post-mortem report would suggest the following antemortem injury on the body of the body of the deceased:-

¶8

"1. an oblique ligature mark 28 cm x 2.5 cm present on all around the neck above thyroid cartilage in front of neck passing obliquely

¶9

upward and backward along the line of mandible and it is interrupted by 3.0 cm on lateral aspect of (Rt) side of neck, ligature mark is situated 3.0 cm below (Rt) ear and 7.0 cm below (Lt) ear. Base of groove of ligature mark is yellowish, hard and parchment like.”

¶10

Cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-morterm hanging.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the deceased had committed suicide and at the best, the case would be of Section 306 IPC, but the allegations of dowry demand as alleged in the FIR have no substance. Allegations have been made only to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC against the accused-applicant. He also submits that the accusedapplicant never pressurized the deceased to part with her two bigha land. He, therefore, submits that considering the fact that the accused-applicant has been in jail since 11.4.2021 and the trial is yet to commence, the accused-applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri S.N. Goswami, learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the deceased had committed suicide within a period of one year from the date of marriage. There are allegations of dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty for dowry demand soon before her death and, therefore, the provisions of Section 304-B IPC are clearly attracted in the present case.

¶13

I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the bail application.

¶14

Except for ligature mark, no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. Accused-applicant and the deceased got married as they fell in love. The deceased was a divorcee having a son, who was living with her parents.

¶15

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,

¶16

coupled with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both sides, and without entering into the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Let applicant Rahul Swarnkar be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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.

¶21

(iv) 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial

¶23

and conclude the same, preferably, within a period of one year without accommodating the request for adjournment on behalf of either of the parties. If the accused-applicant is delaying the trial on one pretext or the other, on an application, the order granting bail may be cancelled by the trial court itself.

¶24

Order Date :- 25.5.2022 Rao/-

¶25

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.05.26 18:15:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Swarnkar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Swarnkar 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

Pinku Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Singh Third Bail Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Khelawan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kaushal Vs State of U.P.