Manish Khandelwal v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
In a bail application under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC regarding an alleged dowry death, the Single judge rejected the prayer for bail. The court held that the nature of allegations was serious and gravity of the offence was high, thus no case for bail was made out.
What did the court decide?
The prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail is rejected.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40275 of 2022
Applicant :- Manish Khandelwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Mohit Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 437 of 2021, Session Trial No. 485 of 2022 (State Vs. Manish Khandelwal), under Section 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and under section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Brief facts as mentioned in the FIR are that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized on 26.06.2020 with the applicant and according to his capacity articles were given, but the applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the articles given in the marriage and were making additional demand of dowry. Informant several time requested to the applicant and his family members for not demanding additional dowry, but they were not satisfied. On 17.06.2021 daughter of informant telephonically informed the informant that her in-laws were beating her and making pressure for taking of Rs. 10 Lacs. Thereafter, on 03.07.2021 informant received information that her daughter has died.
It has been submitted that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The deceased is the wife of the applicant and she consumed poison and has committed suicide. In the Postmortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained and Viscera was preserved. In F.S.L. report, Argono Coloro Insecticides poison was found. He referred a document as M.L.C. No. 74 and has argued that applicant himself admitted his wife in a hospital and then informed to the informant on mobile phone. He further argued that informant in his additional statement given to the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr. P.C. has not supported the prosecution. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, additional statement of the informant was recorded, in which he did not supported the version of the FIR. Entire allegations as leveled by the informant in the FIR are exaggerated. No demand of dowry was ever made with the deceased and she
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a case involving allegations of dowry death under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC.
Whether the applicant has made out a case for bail considering the gravity of the offence.
Whether the Supreme Court observations on bail in matrimonial cases are applicable to the instant case.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Manish Khandelwal
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Mayank Kumar Jain
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/40275/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court