The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the second bail application of accused persons charged with offenses under 498-A, 304-B, and 201 IPC, holding no new grounds made out given the serious nature of the offenses involving death of two relatives and prior rejection.
Bail application dismissed; applicants remain in custody.
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:195306
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29736 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Chandra Patel And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
"Heard Sri Vindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, 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-Ramchandra Patel and Smt. Dulari Devi @ Shyamdulari Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.77 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The entire family including the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and as such as many as seven persons are implicated therein. It is argued that Smt. Kiran Patel, the daughter-in-law of the applicants went from the house along with her three years old son Kartik Patel in the night of 21/22.5.2021 regarding which a missing report was got registered by the applicant no.1 himself on 23.5.2021 which was recorded in G.D. No.031 at 18.04 hours stating the said fact. Subsequently the present FIR has been registered on 23.05.2021 by Utkarsh Patel, the brother of Smt. Kiran Patel implicating the applicants and five other co-accused persons alleging false and frivolous allegations along with concocted story. Smt. Kiran Patel committed suicide and died as is evident from the postmortem report itself in which the doctor has found an incomplete ligature mark on her neck and cause of death was opined asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The husband of the deceased Anil Kumar Patel, who is the son of the applicants is in jail. It is further argued that looking to the statement of the first informant, it is apparent that the story regarding demand of dowry is false. The witnesses Suryabhan Singh Patel, Lal Bahadur Patel, Sanjay Kumar Patel and Kama Prasad Patel were interrogated by the Investigating Officer who have stated that on 21.05.2021 at about 8 p.m. they saw Smt. Kiran Patel going towards the tube-well along with her son, as such implication of the applicants is false and Smt. Kiran Patel committed the murder of her son Kartik Patel and then committed suicide and died. It has also been pointed out that the applicants are not having any criminal history as stated in para 17 of the affidavit. The applicant no.1 is in jail since 26.05.2021 and applicant no.2 is in jail since 08.06.2021.
Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that although the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Smt. Kiran Patel but they are named in the FIR and are involved in the present case. It is argued that in the present matter, Smt. Kiran Patel, the daughter-in-law of the applicants and her son Kartik Patel, a five year old child has died, who is the grand-son of the applicants The information given by the applicant no.1 to the police regarding missing of both the deceased was a pre-planned act just in order to give the case a different colour. Smt. Kiran Patel as per the doctor conducting postmortem, had received three injuries on her body which are an incised wound, an incomplete ligature mark on neck and a superficial incised wound. The deceased Kartik Patel, the five year old son of Smt. Kiran Patel was opined by the doctor to have died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. His body was found in an advance stage of decomposition, hence the dead-body of his mother. The postmortem examination of Kiran Patel was conducted on 24.5.2021 and time since death opined by the doctor was to be 1- 1/2 to two days whereas the postmortem of deceased Kartik Patel aged about 5 years was conducted on 24.05.2021 and therein time since death was opined by the doctor to be more than two days. Since there are allegations against the applicants, the implication of the applicants are there in the present case. It is further argued that charge sheet has
been submitted in the present matter against the applicants and other co-accused persons, as such the applicants are involved in the present case. The dead-body of deceased Smt. Kiran Patel was found in a well, as such prayer for bail be rejected.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicants are named in the FIR. One of the deceased Smt. Kiran Patel who is the daughter-in-law of the applicants apart from the ligature mark has received two other incised wound on her body. The deceased Kartik Patel, the five year old grand-son of the applicants has also died, as such the explanation as coming forward from the side of the applicants is not convincing at all. There are allegations against the applicants of committing the said offence. Charge sheet has been submitted in the present matter.
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."
Order Date :- 10.10.2023 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. requires revisiting the merits after rejection of first application.
Whether the age and false implication arguments of applicants constitute fit case for bail given two deceased involved.
Whether appreciation of witness statement recorded by trial court is permissible in bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Chandra Patel
Dulari Devi
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
