Allowed

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 May 2023BAIL/20500/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Rajendra Singh, father-in-law of the deceased, in a case involving Section 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act charges, relying on parity of treatment with co-accused and the absence of evidence linking him to the death.

What did the court decide?

The applicant- Rajendra Singh, was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and sureties under specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:119327

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20500 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra,Prabhooti Kant Tripathi,Satya Prakash Rai

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Swayamanand Sisodiya,Swetashwa Agarwal

¶6

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶7

1- Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Swayamanand Sisodiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

¶8

2- The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 306 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Chhaprauli, District-Baghpat, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

3- As per the prosecution case in brief, the informant who is father of Pooja (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lodge F.I.R. on 14.10.2022 against Prashant, Poonam and the present applicant Rajendra, who are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased respectively with the allegations inter-alia that his daughter was married to the applicant on 21.11.2021. Today he received an information that his daughter has been done to death by the accused persons for fetching less dowry to them.

¶10

4- It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The F.I.R. does not indicate the demand of dowry as such basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. are lacking. In the postmortem report of the deceased, no injury was found on her body and cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved, but viscera report has not yet been received. It is also

¶11

argued that the deceased was suffering from insomnia and depression and she was not willing to marry with the son of the applicant but her marriage was forcefully solemnized with his son against her wishes. The other co-accused persons, namely, Prashant and Smt. Poonam have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 06.04.2023 and 01.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 15429 of 2023 and 1711 of 2023 respectively. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.03.2023 having no criminal history to his credit and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶12

5- Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but they could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶13

6- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased under similar acquisition have been granted bail as noted above, therefore, the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶14

7- Let the applicant- Rajendra Singh , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the

¶17

case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶19

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶20

8- In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶21

9- It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 29.5.2023 Kashifa

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagum Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukendra Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.

Subhash@ Subhash Yadav Vs State of U.P.