Allowed

Rakesh Kumar Rawat S/O Kandhayi Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2022/3673/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 CrPC concerning charges under 498-A and 304-B IPC for dowry-related death, the High Court granted bail to the accused husband after finding no durable injury beyond ligature marks, noting his detention exceeded two years with no charge sheet filed, thereby deeming it a fit case for release on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and sureties with conditions regarding attendance and avoidance of adjournments.

Rakesh Kumar Rawat S/O Kandhayi Rawat Vs State of U.P… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3673 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Rawat S/O Kandhayi Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.07 of 2021, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act lodged at Police Station Mohd. Pur Khala, District Barabanki.

¶7

The accused-applicant is husband of the deceased, Sushimita Rawat; marriage took place 4 years before the date of incident; out of wedlock, there is one child born from the deceased, who is now 4 years of age; the deceased died on 05.01.2021; there is allegation of dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty for the same; the postmortem report suggests only ligature mark as antemortem injury and cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that from the medical evidence and other facts & circumstances of the case, it would be evident that the deceased had committed suicide. It is further submitted that the allegation of dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty are not borne out from the evidence collected by the investigating officer; except for the statement of the complainant and his family members, there is no other evidence in support of the allegation of dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. It is further submitted that the accused-applicant is in jail for about two years and till date charge has not been framed. It is further submitted that in view of these facts & circumstances of the case, the accused-applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Mr. Diwakar Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate, has opposed the bail and submitted that the deceased died within 7 years of marriage; the death is unnatural one; there are allegations of dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty; since offence under Section 304-B IPC is attracted, the accused-applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

¶10

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Except for ligature mark, no other injury was noticed during the course of postmortem examination; the accused-applicant is in jail for more than 2 years; he has no criminal history; the trial has not yet progressed as per the counsel for the accusedapplicant, even charge has not yet been framed. Considering all these and without commenting upon merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶12

Let applicant- Rakesh Kumar Rawat, accused of abovementioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) the applicant(s) 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;

¶14

(ii). the applicant(s) 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;

¶15

(iii). in case, the applicant(s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) 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; and

¶16

(iv) the applicant(s) 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.

¶17

[D.K. SINGH, J]

¶18

Order Date :- 21.12.2022 MVS/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Kumar Rawat S/O Kandhayi Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Rawat S/O Kandhayi Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

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

Smt. Badrunnisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. U.P. Lko.

Sudheer Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ilyaas Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Dhirendra Bahadur Yadav S/O Radheyshyam (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko