Allowed

Maishar @ Ramesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 May 2022BAIL/16758/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 72 allowed a bail application for the applicant, Maishar @ Ramesh, accused under Sections 498A and 304B IPC in a dowry death case. Accorded bail with conditions and observed non-interference in merits.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to standard conditions including non-interference with witnesses.

Maishar @ Ramesh Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16758 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Maishar @ Ramesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Sagar Verma,Shiksha Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Prem Sagar Verma, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Maishar @ Ramesh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him bail in Case Crime No. 640 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304 B I. P. C., and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act, registered at Police Station-Behat, District-Sahrarnpur during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Sahranpur vide order dated 15.3.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 29.12.2021 at has been lodged against the applicant and other two family members of the applicant including the husband of the deceased by the brother of the deceased, Pinky Devi stating that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with co-accused Pintoo on 24.4.2021. After the marriage the applicant and other co-accused committed marpeet with the deceased and abused her and demanded additional dowry of one motorcycle and Rs. 5,00,000/- for employment. On 29.12.2021 at about 7.30 A. M. they committed murder of his sister and hanged her by a rope. At about 8.30 P. M. the first informant received an information from his phone by un-known person about the incident.

¶8

After lodging of the F. I. R. inquest proceedings were commenced on 29.12.2021 at 14.40 hrs. post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 30.12.2021 at about 11.55 A. M. As per post mortem report cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and viscera was also preserved. After recording the statement of the first informant and other prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C.

¶9

charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and two other named persons and applicant was arrested on 30.12.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased Pinky Devi. General allegations of demand of dowry has been levelled against the applicant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant. Marriage of the sister of the first informant was solemnized with co-accused Pintoo on 24.4.2021 i.e., about eight months prior to the incident. Except ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. The applicant is an old lady and suffering from several old age ailments. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and she has not been convicted by any Court for any cognizable offence.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations levelled are very serious in nature. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, she will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶13

applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased;

¶14

General allegations of demand of dowry has been levelled against the applicant. No specific role has been attributed to the applicant; and

¶15

Except the ligature mark, no other injury has been found on the person of the deceased.

¶16

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶17

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram

¶18

Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶19

Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let applicant, Maishar @ Ramesh released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶26

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

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶28

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal

¶29

impediment.

¶30

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶31

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶32

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.

¶33

Order Date :- 19.5.2022 HR

¶34

Digitally signed by HEMANT RANJAN Date: 2022.05.20 18:44:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maishar @ Ramesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maishar @ Ramesh 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

Noor Jahan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Giri and Another Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Nisha @ Nesha Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and Another