The High Court rejected the second bail application of Hari Shankar, accused in a delayed trial involving Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act, holding it not a fit case for bail due to risk of adverse effect on the proceedings and lack of fresh grounds.
The second bail application was rejected.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135950
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20432 of 2022
Applicant :- Hari Shankar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
of the applicant was rejected by a detailed order passed by this Court. The same is extracted herein below:-
" Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Harishankar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.103 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras.
The prosecution case as per FIR lodged on 09.04.2021 by Smt. Kanta Devi, the mother of the deceased Smt. Manju Devi is that the marriage of her daughter Smt. Manju Devi was solemnized with Harishankar, the applicant on 28.02.2017 in which gifts and dowry was given. After marriage the applicant and his elder brother Ravi were not satisfied with the dowry and started demanding extra dowry. A motorcycle and a buffalo was their demand and due to the same, they used to torture her daughter. They were consoled many times but they did not agree to it. On 09.04.2021, she received an information that her daughter has died by hanging herself after which she went there and found dead-body of her daughter lying on the floor.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. The deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem report wherein the doctor has found a single ligature mark on the body of the deceased and opined the cause of death asphyxia as a result of hanging. There is no other bodily injury found on the body of the deceased. It is further argued that information was given to the police after which the tehsildaar reached the place of occurrence and broke open the door of the room in which the dead-body was found to be hanging from the roof, as such the suicide cannot be ruled out. The sister of the deceased is also married in the same house and she has in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that as the deceased was unable to conceive a child, she was not in a fit mental condition and used to get angry and was suspicious about her husband and had committed suicide, as such implication of the applicant is false. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 29 of the affidavit and is in jail since 10.04.2021.
Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 28.02.2017 and she died on 09.04.2021 in her matrimonial house and the death is unnatural. The room in which the deceased committed suicide also has a window which is marked in the site-plan and as such it cannot be said that there was no other means to enter in the room and as such the door being bolted looses its significance. The applicant is involved in the present case.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The reason for committing suicide has no basis and does not have any credible evidence.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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."
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Order Date :- 10.7.2023/Naresh
Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant satisfies the requirements of Section 439 CrPC for enlargement on bail in a trial pending for over two years.
Whether the delayed conclusion of the trial constitutes sufficient ground to grant bail in a double murder case under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Hari Shankar
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
