Dismissed

Mahesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2023BAIL/3334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for a charge of dowry death, the court rejected the plea, finding that the circumstances attracted a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and no good ground existed for release given the severity of the offence. The defence of accident was noted as a triable issue.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Observation confined to bail issue and shall not affect merits of trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3334 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nigamendra Shukla,Satyendra Narayan Singh,Shashi Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 253 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, in brief, the informant, who is brother of the deceased-Anita @ Somiya, lodged F.I.R. on 02.06.2021, against the present applicant Mahesh Kumar, Harish Chandra, Dinesh and Yogesh, who are husband, father-in-law and brothers-in-law of the deceased respectively, with the allegations interalia that marriage of his sister was solemnized on 22.01.2018, with the present applicant Mahesh Kumar, but after some days of her marriage, the accused persons started, demanding dowry. On making protest, they used to beat her, regarding which two times, complaints were made in the Police Station but on the intervention of some respectable persons of the society matter was compromised. On 01.06.2021, his sister has been done to death.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Referring to the first and second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant, statement of Sangeeta (sister of deceased), it is argued that there

¶9

was no demand of dowry. The alleged demand of Rs. 2 lac was made by the applicant and his father to get job to the applicant, which will not come under the purview of dowry. He next submits that except oral allegation, no material document has been provided by the informant to the Investigating OfÏcer to prove the allegation of demand of dowry. He further submits that, in fact, on account of acrimonious relation of the deceased with her father-in-law and mother-in-law, applicant was dispossessed by his father, thereafter applicant along with his wife started living in a rented house of Bhanu Pratap Singh. Referring the statement of Bhanu Pratap Singh it is argued that in the night of 01.06.2021, when applicant woke up for pee, he did not find his wife there. Since she used to go at the roof of house to walk in the night, therefore, he went on roof but did not find his wife there, when he saw towards the gate, he found that his wife Anita @ Somiya is lying on the road. He immediately informed the owner of the house, who gave information to Police and she was taken to the hospital where Doctor declared her as brought dead. Regarding the injuries found on the body of deceased, it is argued that since deceased herself fell down from the roof, therefore, she received injuries on one side of her body and to sum up, it is argued that it is not a case of pushing the deceased from the roof by the applicant, but a case of accident. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.06.2021.

¶10

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 by contending that deceased died her unnatural death within a short span of 3-1/2 years of her marriage in her matrimonial home. As per prosecution case deceased was pushed down from the roof by the applicant. Referring to the postmortem report of the victim, it is pointed out that eight injuries have been found on her body and cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries and head injuries. It is also submitted that even the applicant did not give information about death of the deceased to her parents. The informant has received

¶11

information about the death of her sister from an unknown person, thereafter, he gave information to the Police.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute that deceased was living with the applicant who died her unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and she has received eight injuries on her body. As per statement of Dr. K.K. Sharma, who had conducted post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased, she had received injuries on both sides of her head, fracture and bleeding were also found. Under the facts and circumstances, presumption of dowry death of the deceased under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act shall be drawn against the applicant. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that deceased herself fell down from the roof in the night is concerned, I find that no one had seen the incident, the same is a defence of the applicant, which is a subject matter of trial. From the statement of Bhanu Pratap Singh, who is owner of the house, it is apparent that applicant and his wife used to quarrel with each other on small matters and in the night of 01.06.2021, before the incident also there was a lot of quarrel between the applicant and his wife (deceased). It is also not the case of applicant that there was no parapet wall at the terrace. From the statement of the informant and Sangeeta-sister of the deceased also it is clear that there was estrangement between the applicant and his wife and their dispute/issue had reached the police station. The applicant being husband of the deceased is not only responsible for safety of his wife but also under heavy onus to properly explain the cause of death of his wife which has occurred in his own house.

¶13

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, nature of injuries and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.3.2023 Kashifa

¶17

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

Mahesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh 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

Rajababu Saroj Vs State of U.P.

Guddu @ Bhushan Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Jeetu@ Jeeta Vs State of U.P.

Sharad Kumar Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Kapil Vs State of U.P.