Allowed

Malik Ram @ Dinesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2022/5798/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the accused husband in a dowry death case. Relying on the precedent of Dataram Singh, the court observed that the single injury and existing bail for co-accused justifiably warranted release after the substantial period spent in detention.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond and two sureties complying with specific conditions.

Malik Ram @ Dinesh Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

A.F.R.

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5798 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Malik Ram @ Dinesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shiv Ram Tiwari, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The applicant, Malik Ram @ Dinesh , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 385 of 2020 (Session Trial No. 527 of 2021), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rupaidiha, District Bahraich.

¶8

As per the version of F.I.R. dated 28.09.2020 the complainant alleges that marriage of her daughter, Arti Devi was solemnized with the applicant two years back, but the in-laws of her daughter were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they used to make demand of motorcycle in the form of additional dowry regularly, and on account of non fulfillment of the said demand, they used to meet cruelty and torture to the daughter of complainant. On 19.09.2020 the mother-in-law of the daughter of complainant informed him that his daughter has hanged herself.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. No such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place. Neither any further 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. It has further been argued that case of the applicant is that the deceased had committed suicide as she was a short tamper lady and always pressurizing the applicant to live separately from his parents, which demand was used to refuse by the applicant, on account of which the deceased remained under mental pressure, and ultimately on the date of incident she committed suicide by hanging herself.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on incorrect facts only with intention to implicate the applicant and his other family members the F.I.R. was lodged by the

¶11

informant against the applicant and his two other family members by making general allegations of demand of additional dowry, even same allegation has been made in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is no incriminating evidence against the applicant for demand of dowry and consequently, harassment or torture of the deceased.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that 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 oblique ligature mark of size 28 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. all around the neck no other injury was found on the person of the deceased. 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. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the definition of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence and the postmortem report of the deceased are identical, it appears a case of committing suicide by hanging and not the murder.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on similar allegations the mother and father of the applicant have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.02.2021 and 08.04.2021 passed in Bail Nos. 1748 and 2073, both of the year 2021, copies of which have been annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. As general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant who is the husband of the deceased, therefore, the case of applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, therefore, the applicant may also be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically.

¶14

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, which fact has been stated in para-33 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail

¶15

since 01.10.2020 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.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer for bail of applicant submitted that the death of the deceased had occurred within two years of her marriage and applicant is the husband of the deceased, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but he has not disputed that the father and mother of the applicant have been enlarged on bail.

¶17

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 there is no specific allegation against the applicant; except only one ligature mark present all around the neck of the deceased no other injury found on the person of the deceased; cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging; father and mother of the applicant having similar allegation have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court; and considering the fact that applicant has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration; as well as 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 that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

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

¶19

Let the applicant, Malik Ram @ Dinesh involved in Case Crime No. 385 of 2020 (Session Trial No. 527 of 2021), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rupaidiha, District Bahraich, 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 :-

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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 declaration of such verification in writing.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 26.7.2022 Mustaqeem

¶31

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.07.28 16:18:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Malik Ram @ Dinesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malik Ram @ Dinesh 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

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

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

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

Diwakar Kanaujiya @ Krishna Vs State U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy.Home DEPTT.CIVIL.SECT.3.OTHERS

Yunus Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Mohd. Farooq Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.