Dismissed

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023BAIL/18424/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the court examined a case involving an unnatural death of a wife attributed to dowry-related harassment. Weighing the allegations and the accused's responsibility as a husband, the court declined to grant bail. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial proceedings promptly.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer is declined and rejected. Trial to be expedited under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18424 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav,Kalpana Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶5

This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the accused/applicant with a prayer to release the accused applicant on bail in Case Crime No.131 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nasirpur, District Firozabad.

¶6

Heard Ms. Kalpana Singh, learned counsel for the accused/applicant and Mr. Shyam Babu, learned brief holder for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused applicant has submitted that accused/applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased committed suicide and the accused/applicant has no role in her death. The accused/applicant married with the deceased. She further submitted that co-accused person namely Smt. Sawanti Devi has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.52284 of 2019. The accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 22.09.2019, having no criminal history. Hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Contrary to it, learned brief holder for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage and there are allegation of demand of dowry in the FIR, hence it will be presumed that it is a dowry death. Hence the accused/applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

¶10

It transpires from the record that the deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage and there are allegations of harassment and torture for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. The postmortem report shows that death of the deceased was unnatural. Six antemortem injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. The accused/applicant is the husband of the deceased, who had a greater responsibility to safeguard the life of his wife.

¶11

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear just to enlarge the accused/ applicant on bail.

¶12

The prayer for release on bail of applicant Pawan Kumar is declined and the bail application is rejected.

¶13

However, the learned lower court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously keeping in view the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶14

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 2.2.2023 A. K. Singh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravendra @ Ravindra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra @ Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Basant @ Gopal Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Nilesh Kumar @ Dheeraj Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Prasad Vs State of Up