Allowed

Jay Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023/2389/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application for a 76-year-old appellant accused under 498A 304B and 323 IPC. The appellant was in custody for alleged dowry harassment leading to his daughter-in-law 's death. Despite serious nature of offence, the court found no specific statement against the applicant regarding the death and granted bail with bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail in FIR No. 0390 of 2022 by furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties.

Jay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42706

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2389 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jay Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Neelu Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Dixit

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

2 . Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record and Sri Umesh Dixit, learned Counsel for the complainant.

¶8

3. The FIR in question was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant was married to the son of the applicant. The applicant and his family members used to demand the dowry, and as such, an FIR with Case Crime No.39 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC was lodged, however, subsequently on the intervention of the society members', the daughter of the informant was sent back to the matrimonial home. It is alleged in the FIR that despite the promise, the applicant and his family members used to harass the daughter of the informant. On 20.07.2022, it was informed that the daughter of the informant had died on account of burn injuries. The applicant is aged about 76 years and is in custody since 02.11.2022.

¶9

4. The Counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and used to live separately from his son, as such, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She further argues that the applicant is of 76 years old and is not physically capable to cause the offence in question. She further argues that no specific averments except for demand of dowry has been made against the applicant. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he would adversely affect the trial.

¶10

5. The Counsel for the complainant opposed the bail prayer and argues that it is wrong to say that the applicant is living

¶11

separately from his son. In support of the said submission, the Counsel for the applicant places reliance on Aadhar and Ration Cards to demonstrate that the deceased was living in the house in question where the main accused resides, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶12

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer on the ground that the offence in question is serious in nature.

¶13

7. Considering the submissions made at the bar and the nature of the burn injury, there being no specific statement of the informant of causing burn injury against the applicant which led to the death of the deceased, the applicant is 76 years of age, the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents and is in custody since 02.11.2022 and there is nothing on record to demonstrates that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

9. Let the applicant Jay Kumar Mishra be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 390 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station Sandna, District Sitapur on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(c) 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.7.2023 akverma

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jay Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

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

Baijnath Tiwari Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home. U.P.Lko

Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Kusum Dubey @ Kusub Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dpett. of Home Lko.

Raja Alias Shivam Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Salman Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko and 3 Others

Shyam Bihari Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko.