Court rejected bail application in a dowry death case involving 498A IPC and dowry act charges, holding gravity of offence precludes bail. Court directed trial conclusion within six months per Section 309 CrPC.
Bail application rejected; direction to trial court to conclude trial within six months.
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:107041
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22994 of 2020
Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Pandey,Ashok Kumar Rai,Chandra Prakash Pandey,Hari Om Sharan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Shanker Audichya
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as Sri Jai Shanker Audichya, learned counsel for the informant and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Sessions Trial No.61 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.400 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Daraganj, District-Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the First Information Report (in short 'FIR'). It is submitted that the applicant is husband of deceased Anupma, who got married with the applicant on 24.11.2012 and died on 22.11.2019. The deceased was pressing the applicant to reside at Delhi in his father's house. It is submitted that as the parents of the applicant had passed away few years ago, the applicant did not want to go there with the deceased and being displeased by it, the deceased committed suicide. It is further submitted that general allegations are made in the FIR. The applicant never made any demand of dowry from his wife and she was never subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfilment of said demand. It is contended that except ligature
mark, no injury was found on the person of the deceased. Personal diary of the deceased discloses that she wanted to live separately at New Delhi and she felt that the applicant was not liking her. It is also vehemently argued that so far as the demand of dowry is concerned, the informant in his statement has stated that since he did not have any male child, therefore, the applicant and his family members were making a demand for transfer of the house of the informant, situated at New Delhi, in their name. It is submitted that this kind of transaction does not fall in the category of demand of dowry. It is also submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.11.2019 and there is no substantial progress in the trial as only two witnesses of prosecution have been examined till date. At last, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased died within seven years of marriage under suspicious circumstances in the applicant's house. It is also contended that during inquest report certain injuries were noted on the person of the deceased and opinion of Panch was that she was hit by sharp object and was strangulated. It is also contended that apart from ligature mark, lacerated wound was also found on the person of the deceased. The information of death of the deceased was not given to her parents. It is also contended that the statement of daughter of the deceased Ananya is very important. She has stated that her mother was inside in the room, room was open and while she was found hanging with fan, her hands were tied behind her back with her chunni. It is submitted that at the relevant time of occurrence, the applicant was also present in the house. Hence, the applicant does not deserve any leniency by this Court and his bail application is liable to be rejected.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant, gravity of the offence and severity of punishment coupled with the fact that the allegation levelled against the applicant is regarding murder of his own wife and it is the husband who owes sole responsibility to keep his wife with full dignity and lead her to a safer life irrespective of any situation, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application of applicant Praveen Kumar Shukla is hereby rejected.
However, considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.11.2019, the trial court is directed to make every endevaour to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it, if there is no other legal impediment, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023 Manish Himwan
Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to be enlarged on bail in a case involving charge of dowry death. Whether to direct speedy trial for an applicant enduring prolonged custody.
Whether the gravity of the offence and severity of punishment preclude grant of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Praveen Kumar Shukla
State of U.P.
Manish Himwan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
