Allowed

Ritesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2022/7272/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court granted release to the applicant in a dowry-related suicide case. Relying on parity with granted bail for co-accused (applicant's parents), nature of hanging death, and substantial detention, the court allowed bail subject to standard conditions regarding court appearance and bail safety.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering and ensuring trial attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7272 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ritesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

This case is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has uploaded the supplementary affidavit on the official website of the High Court on 27.07.2022.

¶7

Heard Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aniruddh Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 119 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Lonar, District Hardoi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage between the applicant and the deceased took place in the year 2018 and the relation with the applicant and wife was cordial, except some minor dispute, which always happens between husband and wife. He further submits that prior to the present allegation, no complaint was ever made by the in-laws of the deceased regarding causing any cruelty or demand of additional dowry.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that deceased was creating pressure on the applicant to live separately from his parents and on denial by the applicant, as he was not having adequate source of income, the deceased always lived under pressure and due to this reason, she committed suicide by hanging herself in the room. He further submits that as per postmortem report of the deceased, there is only one injury found i.e. ligature mark and cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging, no other injury mark was present except one old injury.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the information regarding the death of the deceased was given by the father of the applicant on the same day. The applicant has no active role in the commission of the alleged crime. No such

¶12

demand of additional dowry was ever made by the applicant with the deceased or with in-laws. A general role has been levelled against all the accused persons, named in the F.I.R. regarding demand of additional dowry.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since as per the Modi's Jurisprudence and as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, it is a case of hanging and not the strangulation or murder, and as general role has been assigned to all the accused persons, therefore, the case of the applicant is also on same footing.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further pointed out that the name of the the brother of the applicant, Rohit was exonerated by the Investigating Officer from the charge-sheet, as no case was made out against him and the mother and father of the applicant, namely Ramguni and Maya Ram against whom same allegation was levelled, as applicant, have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 27.08.2020 and 12.04.2021 passed in Bail No. 5797 of 2020 and Bail No. 4215 of 2021 respectively. He further submits that as the general allegation has been levelled by the prosecution against all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. and the mother and father of the applicant were already granted bail, therefore, the case of the applicant is not on worse footing than that of the other co-accused who have already granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered and he should also be released on bail on principles of parity.

¶15

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 has been explained in para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 26.03.2020 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he should also be released on bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, but did not dispute this fact that mother and father of the applicant, namely

¶17

Ramguni and Maya Ram against whom same allegation was levelled, as applicant, have already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court.

¶18

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 in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that as per medical report the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and as per the report of the doctor, except one injury mark i.e. ligature mark, there is no other injury mark present on the external or internal part of the deceased and as per the Modi Jurisprudence appears to be a case of hanging not strangulation or muder and the father and mother of the applicant, who were involved in the alleged incident with identical and similar allegation have already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court and the applicant has already undergone substantial period of detention and further 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant- Ritesh involved in Case Crime No. 119 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Lonar, District Hardoi be released 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 :-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(6) The applicant shall remain present, 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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 merits of the case.

¶31

Order Date :- 10.8.2022 Arvind

¶32

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.11 16:30:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ritesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh 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

Deepak Kumar Major Bail Cancellation Vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra Alias Opendra Yadav S/O Raj Kishor Vs the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Shivam Yadav S/O Sri Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Shanti Devi W/O Rakesh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home

Mithlesh Kumar @ Pinto Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.