Allowed

Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2023BAIL/31565/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application allowed for an applicant in a dowry death case after four years of incarceration, conceding he served over 50% of the minimum 7-year sentence despite the case remaining pending.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts.

What the court decided

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167062

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31565 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar,Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhaiya Ram Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

None appeared on behalf of the informant. However, learned AGA for the State-respondent is present.

¶8

Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Singh, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 106 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and his family members and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was performed with the deceased on 20.5.2015 and after marriage applicant and his family members tortured the deceased for want of Rs. three lacs and on 21.5.2019 informant received an information that applicant and his family members assaulted the deceased and when he arrived at her matrimonial home then found that the dead body of his sister i.e. deceased was on the roof.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry and torture, he has been made accused in the present case alongwith his other family members.

¶12

He further submitted that actually as even after four years of her marriage deceased could not be conceived, therefore, under depression she committed suicide.

¶13

He further submitted that even as per autopsy report deceased died due to hanging and her hyoid bone was found intact.

¶14

He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 20.6.2019 i.e. for more than four years and therefore, he has already served more than 50% of the minimum sentence of seven years provided under section 304 B IPC.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died under abnormal circumstances in his home within four years of her marriage and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but he could not dispute the fact that as per post mortem report deceased died due to hanging and applicant is in jail since 20.6.2019 i.e. for more than four years.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

Although, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within four years of her marriage in her matrimonial home under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of Rs. Three lacs but applicant is in jail since 2.6.2019 i.e.

¶18

for more than four years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded and applicant has already served more than 50% of the minimum sentence of seven years provided under section 304 B IPC.

¶19

Further applicant took a defence that as even after four years of marriage deceased could not be conceived, therefore, she committed suicide. The defence taken by applicant could not be compeletely disbelieved at this stage.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, particularly the long incarceration of four years of the applicant, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Vipin Kumar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶28

Order Date :- 18.8.2023

¶29

Ankita

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Vipin Kumar 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

Manish Gaur @ Manni Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others