Allowed

Satish Rathur v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023BAIL/21530/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to an applicant accused under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant argued false implication, supported by autopsy findings, and lack of criminal antecedents, citing the length of custody and the need to prevent trial delay under Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb.

What did the court decide?

The applicant whose released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21530 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Rathur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Ranjan Tripathi,Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 586 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Akberpur, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased person, along with his mother are stated to have subjected the deceased person to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby the applicant and other co-accused person are stated to have assaulted and injured her and took her to Hallett Hospital Kanpur Nagar, whereby she was declared dead. The deceased carried fetus of three months in her womb at the time of death.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations alleged in the FIR are not substantiated and stands falsified by the autopsy report, whereby only one abrasion 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm has been found on the elbow joint. Learned counsel has stated that even it has not been mentioned in the autopsy report on which elbow the said abrasion was found. Learned counsel has stated that viscera report was preserved as the cause of death could not be ascertained by the doctor conducting the postmortem examination. The viscera report has been filed with the supplementary affidavit which indicates that no poison has been found in it. Learned counsel has stated that the charge in the

¶11

present case was framed on 18.2.2020 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.8.2019 for no fault of him. No prosecution witnesses have been examined to date as per the order-sheet filed with the supplementary affidavit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the said facts narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712 , has observed as under:-

¶14

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Satish Rathur involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission

¶21

of which he is suspected.

¶22

(v). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.2.2023 Vikas

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Rathur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Rathur 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Basant Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Jaykaran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nathu Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.