Dismissed

Kalawati v. State of Up

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2023BAIL/37562/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Allahabad High Court rejected a bail application in a Section 498-A/304-B I.P.C. case involving dowry death. The court held that since co-accused bail orders contained no reasons, they offered no benefit to the applicant. However, the trial court was directed to conclude trial within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial within eight months.

Kalawati Vs State of Up — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150557

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37562 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Kalawati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jadu Nandan Yadav,Agnivesh,Chandra Prakash Pandey,Kunvar Rahul Singh,Prakash Chandra Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey holding brief of Sri Kunvar Rahul Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.187 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Tirwa, District Kannauj during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and her family members including husband of the deceased and according to the F.I.R. marriage of the son of the applicant was performed with the deceased about three years before and after marriage applicant and her family members tortured the deceased for demand of motorcycle, a buffalo and Rs.1,00,000/- and due to want of dowry on 20.05.2020, they ablazed her by pouring petrol upon the deceased.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation of demand of dowry is totally false and this fact finds support from the dying declaration of the deceased which has been annexed along with the bail application.

¶10

He further submits that although in the dying declaration it was stated that applicant poured petrol upon her and thereafter applicant along with other co-accused ablazed her but co-accused Dhaniram (father-in-law of the deceased) and Mukesh (jeth of the deceased) have already released on bail and as per dying declaration case of the applicant is at par with them. The applicant is a lady and she is in jail since 23.07.2020 i.e. for about 3 years,

¶11

therefore, considering this fact, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the dying declaration there is specific allegation against the applicant that she firstly poured petrol upon the deceased and thereafter, she along with other co-accused persons ablazed the deceased and in both the bail orders of coaccused Dhaniram (father-in-law of the deceased) and Mukesh (jeth of the deceased), no reason has been assigned and even from both the bail orders, it appears that the learned counsel for the applicant at that time argued that the applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

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

¶14

Applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and in the dying declaration recorded by the Tehsildar, deceased categorically stated that applicant firstly poured petrol upon her thereafter, she along with other accused persons ablazed her, although bail of coaccused Dhaniram (father-in-law of the deceased) and Mukesh (jeth of the deceased) has already allowed by two co-ordinate Benchs of this Court but from the both bail orders, it reflects that no reason has been assigned while granting bail, therefore, in my view, no benefits can be extended to the applicant on the basis of bail orders of co-accused Dhaniram (father-in-law of the deceased) and Mukesh (jeth of the deceased), therefore, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶16

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.

¶17

However, considering the facts that applicant is a lady and she is in jail for more than three years, trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

Order Date :- 26.7.2023 Jitendra

¶19

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kalawati v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalawati v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arif Ali Vs State of U.P.

Khursheed @ Raja Khan Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Faisal Malik @ Suheb Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.