Dismissed

Akhilesh Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2022BAIL/32009/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a bail application filed by the husband of a deceased wife in a dowry death case. The court held that under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden lay on the applicant to explain the abnormal death of his wife, which he failed to do, making the case unfit for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected as not a fit case for enlargement.

Akhilesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32009 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- D.M.Tripathi,Charan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nitin Agarwal, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

2.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant to release him on bail in Case Crime No.286 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sikarara, District Jaunpur during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

As per the FIR the marriage of the deceased was performed with the applicant in May, 2019 and applicant harassed the deceased for want of dowry and deceased was not ready to go her ' Sasural' . On 18.12.2020 the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home by the informant (father) and even two days' prior to the incident the deceased informed her father that the applicant was harassing her. As per post mortem report deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.

¶8

4.Learned counsel for the applicant contended that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but cause of death in the post mortem report is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and, therefore, he cannot be held liable for the death of the deceased. He further contended that the applicant neither harassed the deceased in any manner nor demanded any

¶9

dowry and the applicant is in Jail for the last more than one year and, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶10

5.Per contra, learned AGA contended that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and he is having all the responsibility to maintain his wife and there is legal burden on him to explain the circumstances, under which she committed suicide, therefore, it is not a fit case in which applicant should be released on bail.

¶11

6.I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

7.Admittedly, applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife (deceased) died within seven years of her marriage and there are consistent demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased due to want of dowry. FIR also reveals that even soon before her death, deceased informed the informant (father) that applicant was harassing her. The applicant miserably failed to explain the circumstances in which his wife committed suicide.

¶13

8.Under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, there is burden upon the applicant to explain the circumstances in which his wife died abnormal death. Although post mortem report suggests that deceased committed suicide but it cannot be said that she died under normal circumstances. Therefore, in my considered view, it is not a fit case in which applicant may be enlarged on bail. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present application is rejected.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.3.2022 SKM

¶15

Digitally signed by SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.03.21 17:53:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Chauhan 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

Lal Bahadur Vs M/D U.P. Jal Nigam and 3 Others

Suresh Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kasim Bux Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjay and Anothers Vs State of U.P.

Rajmati Dhangar Vs State of U.P.

Neelam Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow