Allowed

Kaushal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2022/4390/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the husband of a deceased woman charged with dowry death under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Despite allegations of torture and ante-mortem injuries, the court found the case fit for bail pending trial while imposing strict conditions for the applicant's appearance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions ensuring presence in court and no obstruction of trial proceedings.

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

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4390 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Kaushal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava,Adarsh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶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

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR No.433 of 2018,under Sections 498A, 304B IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mishrikh, District Sitapur.

¶7

3. The accused-applicant is husband of the deceased Pinki Devi. Marriage between the accused-applicant and the deceased took place on 24.01.2018. It is alleged that the accused-applicant and other co-accused were demanding dowry for which the parents of the deceased did not have means to fulfill the demand of dowry. The accused-applicant and other co-accused would torture, harass and subject the deceased to cruelty for dowry demand. It is also alleged that on 26.11.2018 the accused-applicant and other co-accused killed the deceased.

¶8

4. Mr.Rajiv Raman Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that there was no demand of dowry. In the FIR, it does not come out that what items were allegedly demanded by the accused-applicant. The deceased was unable to adjust in the household of the accused-applicant for the reasons best would have been known to her and she committed suicide. But to attract the provisions of Sections 304B IPC, 498A IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, allegations of dowry demand, torture and harassment to the deceased and subjecting her to cruelty have been made. It is also submitted that at the most, the case would come under Section 306 IPC as there are some ante mortem injuries besides ligature mark. He also submits that the accused-applicant has been in jail since 01.12.2018 and considering the nature of offence, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶9

5. Mr.G.D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. opposes the bail application and submits that the death of the wife of the accused-applicant has taken place within 11 months of the marriage. There are allegations of dowry demand and subjecting the deceased to cruelty for dowry demand. It is also submitted that post mortem would suggest two contusions besides ligature mark and, thus, it is clear that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused-applicant. He, therefore, submits that

¶10

ingredients of Section 304B IPC are present in the case. The accused-applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

¶11

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

7. Post mortem would suggest following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-

¶13

"(i) Ligature mark 24 cm x 2.5 cm present on around neck above thyroid cartilage. In front of neck passing obliquely upward and back ward along the line okf mandible with a gap of Tan c/o nohar on which present on left side of neck situated 4.3 cm below chin and 6 cm below right ear. On dissection substances tissue under ligature mark is while hard and glistening.

¶14

(ii) Contusion of 3 cm x 2 cm present on back of left shoulder 4 cm below tip of left shoulder; and

¶15

(iii) Contusion of 3cm x 3 cm present on mid of forehead 4.5 cm above root of nose."

¶16

8. Cause of death is opined to be asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. FIR does not disclose that what items were allegedly being demanded by the accusedapplicant as additional dowry. The accused-applicant has been in jail since 01.12.2018,

¶17

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, long incarceration of the accused-applicant pending trial, 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.

¶18

10. Let applicant Kaushal 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 :-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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

¶22

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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

Order Date :- 25.5.2022 prateek

¶25

Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.05.26 17:44:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kaushal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal 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

Rahul Swarnkar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Khelawan and Another Vs State of U.P.