Dismissed

Govind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023BAIL/52557/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail application, the learned sessions judge of Court No. 75, examining a case involving alleged marital disputes and the deceased's death, which the authorities have classified as a dowry death under various provisions. The applicant, who has been in detention, filed for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding the allegations against him. The trial court, noting the post-mor

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected, applicant detained pending trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52557 of 2022 Applicant :- Govind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶4

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 165 of 2021 (S.T. No. 883 of 2021), under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Sonha, District-Basti, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶5

As per prosecution case, in brief, the informant who is father of Pramila aged about 24 years (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lodged F.I.R. on 31.07.2021 at 13:30 hours, against the applicant and his mother with the allegations inter alia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 21.05.2021 with the applicant, in her marriage sufÏcient dowry was given as per his capacity but after marriage the accused persons started harassing his daughter and demanding additional dowry. On 31.07.2021 at about 6:00 am he received information that his daughter has committed suicide.

¶6

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has neither demanded any dowry nor harassed the deceased after marriage. Since she did not like the applicant, therefore, she committed suicide. 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 03.08.2021 having no criminal history to his credit.

¶7

Per contra , learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the

¶8

prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that as per postmortem report of the deceased, apart from ligature mark, two injuries in the nature of incised wounds of size 4x0.2cm skin deep on anterior aspect of left forearm 5cm above left wrist joint and 1x0.2cm skin deep on anterior aspect of the left forearm 4cm above left wrist joint have also been found. He also submits that before the trial court examination-in-chief of PW-1 has been recorded in which he has supported the prosecution case.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the deceased died her unnatural death within a short span of two months in her matrimonial home, therefore, under the facts of the case presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evident Act shall be drawn against the applicant. In the postmortem report of the deceased incised wounds have also been found on the body of the deceased as noted above. The applicant being husband of the deceased is not only responsible for taking care of his wife but also under heavy onus to explain the cause of death of the deceased which has occurred in his own house. So far as the defence of the applicant that deceased did not like him so committed suicide is concerned, the same is a matter of proof before the trial Court in accordance with law.

¶10

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.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶12

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.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.4.2023/Kashifa

¶14

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

Govind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind 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

Rajkumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sallan Maulana Vs State of U.P.

Shivdhakad @ Sudhakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogesh Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.