Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 May 2022/2769/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court observed medical evidence suggesting suicide by poison and the accused's disability as grounds for release, despite allegations of dowry death. The court granted bail with specific conditions to ensure presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance and no adjournments during evidence.

Pinku Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2769 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-applicant seeking bail in FIR No.535 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi.

¶7

3. The accused-applicant is husband of the deceased-Raveena @ Ankita. The marriage took place 5 years before the date of the incident. Out of wedlock, there are two children. It is alleged that the accused-applicant and other co-accused named in the FIR used to harass, torture and subject the deceased to cruelty for dowry demand of Rs.50,000/- and one motorcycle. On 3/4.09.2020, it is alleged that the deceased was killed by the accusedapplicant and other accused.

¶8

4. Post mortem report would disclose that there was no ante mortem injury found on the body of the deceased. Her viscera was preserved and as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, viscera contained Aluminum Phosphide.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the deceased had committed suicide. He further submits that the accused-applicant is invalid so was the deceased. Due to poverty, the deceased has committed suicide. The accused-applicant has been in jail since 10.01.2022. He further submits that the allegations of dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty are complete falsehood and these allegations have been made to attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC but there is no iota of truth in the allegations. He, therefore, submits that the accused-applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

6. On the other hand, Mr.Rajeev Singh, learned A.G.A. submits that the

¶11

death has taken place within 5 years from the date of marriage and there are allegations of dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty by the accused-applicant and other co-accused. He, therefore, submits that provisions of Section 304B IPC are clearly made out against the accusedapplicant. He therefore, submits that the accused-applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

¶12

7. I have considering the submissions of learned counsel for the accusedapplicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

8. It does not appeal to reason that a person would demand Rs.50,000/even after 5 years of marriage. There are two children born out of wedlock. This bail application contains disability certificate of the accused. There is no ante mortem injury found on the body of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination and as per the Forensic Science Laboratory Report viscera contains aluminum phosphate and by consuming the said poison, the deceased died.

¶14

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶15

10. Let applicant Pinku be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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

¶19

such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (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.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.5.2022 prateek

¶21

Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.05.24 18:16:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Avadhesh Narayan Tiwari Third Bail Vs State of U.P.

Paltu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Premwati Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others