Allowed

Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2023/868/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC, the Allahabad High Court allowed the bail of the accused father-in-law. The court noted he was specifically excluded in the dying declaration, is an elderly person with health issues, and has no criminal history, concluding he made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and providing undertakings regarding attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 868 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Raman Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned counsel representing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant (Ashok Kumar Dixit) for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.261 of 2022, under Sections 498-A & 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶8

It is further submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and is an old aged person and is also suffering from various age related ailments. The deceased is shown to have died little after one year of her marriage with the son of the applicant by burning and in the F.I.R. lodged by the mother of the deceased, general allegation of subjecting the deceased to cruelty in lieu of demand of dowry has been levelled, however, no specific overact has been levelled against the applicant and by any stretch of imagination, he being the father-in-law of the deceased would not be the beneficiary of any dowry, which was being allegedly demanded from the deceased.

¶9

While drawing attention of this Court towards the dying declaration of the deceased recorded on 29.05.2022 at 00:05 hours at Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Hospital (Civil Hospital), Lucknow, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.4 to this application, it is vehemently submitted that even if this document is taken and believed on its face, no offence could be attracted so far as the applicant is concerned as deceased in her dying declaration had categorically admitted that she had herself committed suicide and general allegation of

¶10

demand of dowry has been levelled against all her in-laws and no specific allegation has been attributed to the present applicant. In presence of the husband of the deceased, no liability or responsibility could be fastened on the applicant to explain the circumstances, under which the deceased had committed suicide as the applicant was living separately in the same house and was not having any concern with their affairs.

¶11

It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 22.06.2022 and he is not carrying any criminal history. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused of this case, namely, Savitri Dixit, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11952 of 2022, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicant is the fatherin-law of the deceased. General role of subjecting deceased to cruelty has been levelled in the F.I.R. In the postmortem report of the deceased, superficial to deep burn injuries have been found on the body of the deceased and cause of death of the deceased was due to septicemia as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. During the course of investigation, dying declaration of the deceased was recorded, wherein she did not attribute any specific role to the instant applicant and only general role of demand of dowry has been assigned to all family members of her husband. Applicant is in jail in this case since 22.06.2022 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶15

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail

¶16

application is thus allowed.

¶17

Let the present applicant (Ashok Kumar Dixit) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Kejriwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl.Chief Secy. Home and Another

Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neelam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Monu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Raj Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Madhvesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. of Home Civil Sect. Lko