Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:188287

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41955 of 2023

Applicant :- Dinesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Mohan Mishra,Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 178 of 2022 at Police Station-Chilhiya, District-Siddharth Nagar under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant is in jail since 31.01.2023.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 02.05.2023.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶9

The applicant is the husband of the deceased

¶10

The applicant never harassed the deceased nor did he demand dowry.

¶11

The applicant resided in Punjab where he worked for livelihood. The deceased wanted to stay with him

¶12

at Punjab. The applicant expressed his inability to take the deceased to Punjab due to lack of accommodation and financial constraints.

¶13

The deceased became depressed due to prolonged separation from her husband.

¶14

On the fateful day, she succumbed to depression and took the extreme step of ending her life. She committed suicide by hanging.

¶15

The post mortem report opines that the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.

¶16

Injuries depicted in the post mortem report consistent with hanging are:

¶17

(i). Nature of ligature mark.

¶18

(ii). No abnormality was detected in the hyoid bone.

¶19

The applicant did not abet or instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

¶20

The prerequisite for attracting the presumption and reversing of the burden of proof are not established in the facts and circumstances and evidence of the case.

¶21

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶22

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial

¶23

proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶24

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant- Dinesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶27

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶28

Order Date :- 27.9.2023 Vandit

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mewa Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ved Prakash @ Chintu Vs State of U.P.

Bale @ Balwant Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Smt Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P.

Pratap Pradhan Vs State of U.P.