Allowed

Raghuraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 May 2022BAIL/7787/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for murder and dowry-related charges, the Court observed that while the applicant was the father-in-law of the deceased, no specific role was attributed to him. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court was satisfied that the case warranted a bail grant.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Raghuraj Singh was released on bail on compliance of a personal bond and two reliable sureties with specified undertakings to appear in court and not misuse liberty.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7787 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raghuraj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitinjay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Nitinjay Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.K. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Raghuraj Singh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 262 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Bagwala, District Etah during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Sessions Judge, Etah vide order dated 2.2.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 5.12.2021 has been lodged against the applicant, his wife and son by the first informant stating that the marriage of his sister aged about 22 years was solemnized with co-accused Bal Kishore prior to one and half year of the incident and out of their wedlock, one girl child was born prior to two months of the incident. The applicant and other co-accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry and they constantly demanded additional dowry and they also threatened to his sister to solemnize second marriage of her husband (co-accused Bal Kishore). On 5.12.2021 they committed murder of his sister by strangulating her neck.

¶8

After lodging of the FIR, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 5.12.2021 at 10.30 p.m. Postmortem report of the body of the deceased was conducted on 6.12.2021 at 2.40 p.m. As per the postmortem report, except ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. After recording the statement of the first informant and other prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons, namely, Bal Kishore and Shanti Devi. The applicant was arrested on 8.12.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive as well as matrimonial dispute. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that except ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. General allegation of demand of dowry and harassment have been levelled against the applicant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present applicant. It is further argued that co-accused Bal Kishore (husband of the deceased) and another co-accused Shanti Devi are in judicial custody. The applicant has no criminal history and has not been convicted in any cognizable offence.

¶10

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has 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 involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

(a) Applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased;

¶13

(b) General allegation of demand of dowry and harassment have been levelled against the applicant;

¶14

¶15

(d) Except ligature mark no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased;

¶16

(e) Cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging;

¶17

(f) Husband of the deceased is in judicial custody.

¶18

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.

¶19

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 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. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let applicant, Raghuraj Singh be 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 impediment.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Order Date :- 13.5.2022 M. Tarik

¶33

Digitally signed by MOHD TARIK Date: 2022.05.14 12:56:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raghuraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuraj Singh 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

Ayush Sharma @ Aashu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Anil Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Kanaujiya Vs State of U.P.

Nayeem Urf Onu Vs State of U.P.

Smt Pyari Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another