Dismissed

Machkund Gurjar @ Gaurav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2023BAIL/48064/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding a dowry death case involving Sections 498-A IPC, 304-B IPC, and the Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court refused bail citing the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and the grave nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was rejected at this stage; the applicant remains in custody.

Machkund Gurjar @ Gaurav Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48064 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Machkund Gurjar @ Gaurav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh,Ram Chandra Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Machkund Gurjar alias Gaurav, involved in case crime No. 553 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Ajitmal, district Auraiya, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, in brief, the informant, who is father of Sapna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lodged a first information report on 22.11.2021 against the present applicant Machkund Gurjar alias Gaurav and his mother Smt. Maya Devi, who are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively with the allegations inter alia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the applicant on 15.2.2020 and in the marriage sufÏcient dowry was given as per his capacity, but after the marriage his daughter was subjected to harassment and torture in her matrimonial home by the accused persons for additional dowry regarding which her daughter made a complaint to her uncle Shri Rumal Singh. The FIR further alleges that on 21.11.2021 his daughter was done to death by the accused persons.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. In the FIR no specific details of the dowry, which was demanded by the applicant was mentioned and only the word additional dowry has

¶9

been mentioned. It is pointed out that the deceased died on account of hanging and she was taken to the hospital by the applicant where she was declared brought dead by the doctor. He further submits that on the information given by the applicant, informant and other family members of the deceased reached the spot and also participated in the inquest proceeding, but they have lodged the FIR on 22.11.2021 on false and concocted allegations. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.11.2021 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by contending that as per post-mortem report cause of death of the deceased is strangulation. Deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home within a short span and that there is specific allegations of harassment and torture of the deceased against the applicant and his mother for additional dowry. They have also opposed the stand of the learned counsel for the applicant that information was given by him to the parents of the deceased. Considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application of the applicant is likely to be rejected.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute that the deceased died an unnatural death within a short span of one year and nine month. As per post-mortem report, the cause of death is strangulation and, therefore, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act shall be drawn against the applicant. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that details of dowry have not been specified is concerned, this Court is of the view that the FIR is not an encyclopedia in which each and every

¶12

minutes details should be mentioned. The purpose of FIR is only the set the criminal law into motion. Though paragraph 17 of the bail application, it is mentioned that information about the death of the deceased was given by the applicant to the informant, but the same appears to be wholly vague and evasive in nature as mode of communication/information has not been disclosed by the applicant, which is a very relevant aspect of the matter for considering the bail application of the applicant.

¶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, severity of punishment and the provisions of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶15

It is clarified that anything observed in this order is limited to the extent of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced uninfluenced by anything mentioned in the order.

¶16

However the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.4.2023 Ishrat

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Machkund Gurjar @ Gaurav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machkund Gurjar @ Gaurav 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

Rajeev Vs State of U.P.

Dharamveer Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Rathaur Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Sahani Vs State of U.P.