Single judge granted bail to an aged father-in-law accused in a dowry death case (498-A/304-B IPC), considering medical evidence of suicide, parity with co-accused, and precedents.
Release on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount with conditions of presence and cooperation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 720 of 2023
Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Srivastava,Yatendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The applicant, Ajay Kumar Mishra, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.296 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Salon, DistrictRaebareli.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, he is innocent, an aged person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No such demand of dowry was ever made by the applicant or his family members at the time of marriage or after the marriage. The allegation of additional demand of dowry against the applicant is false and has only been made with intention to falsely implicate the applicant along with his other family members. The marriage of son of the applicant with the deceased took place on 25.06.2020, relations of applicant and the deceased were also cordial and there was no dispute between them at all.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant's son against her wishes and she used to talk with some other person on mobile phone regularly and she was having some illicit relations also. When this fact came into knowledge of the husband of the deceased the dispute arose between them, and due to this reason the deceased used to live under mental stress and frustration and ultimately on the date of incident she committed suicide by hanging herself. There is no role of applicant or his family members in killing the deceased as she has committed suicide.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that death of the deceased was informed by the applicant to the parents of the
deceased and at the time of inquest proceedings both the family members of applicant as well as of the deceased were present.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the postmortem report of the deceased her cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and there is only one ligature mark found all around the neck of the deceased. In support of his argument that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the extract of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, wherein definition of hanging has been described. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the definition of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence and the postmortem report of the deceased are almost identical, it appears a case of committing suicide by hanging and not the murder or strangulation, therefore, applicant may be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically. Learned counsel has further submitted that coaccused Smt. Sudha Mishra (mother-in-law of the deceased), having similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14289 of 2022, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and being one of the family members of husband of the deceased he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
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 fact has been explained in para-22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 22.06.2022 and has already undergone a substantial period of detention, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he should also be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that deceased died in an unnatural circumstance within two years of her marriage, and the applicant is the fatherin-law of the deceased, therefore, his prayer for bail may be rejected.
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 general allegations with regard to demand of dowry and committing cruelty in lieu thereof have been attributed to all the accused persons named in the first information report including the applicant; the applicant could not be the beneficiary of the demand of dowry as he is father-in-law of the deceased; as per the postmortem report of the deceased cause of death of the deceased was found to be asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and there is only one ligature mark found all around the neck of the deceased; there appears force in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that since the definition of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence and the postmortem report of the deceased are identical, it appears a case of committing suicide by hanging and not the murder or strangulation; considering the fact that co-accused- Smt. Sudha Mishra, having similar role, has been granted bail by this Court; 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 cases of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and 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.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed .
Let applicant- Ajay Kumar Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and 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.
(iv) 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 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.
(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
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.
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.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 13.1.2023 RBS/-
Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, father-in-law of the deceased accused in a dowry death case, should be granted bail given the nature of evidence and prior precedent.
Whether the applicant being an aged person falsely implicated without role in causing the deceased's death warrants bail release.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶13
Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 · Who else cites this
Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and anotherFollowed¶16
Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Kumar Mishra
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
