Allowed

Arvind Malik v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Allahabad HC24 May 2023BAIL/539/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a dowry death case involving charges of culpable homicide and cruelty. The court granted bail noting the absence of direct evidence against the applicant despite the serious nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions including attendance, no tampering with evidence, and no criminal activity.

Arvind Malik Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116021

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 539 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Arvind Malik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Vikash Chandra Tiwari,Pradumn Tripathi,Surendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prabhat Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1- Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

¶7

2- The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0621 of 2021, under Sections 306, 498A of I.P.C., Police Station-Loni Border, DistrictGhaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

3- As per the prosecution case in brief, informant who is mother of Priya Dahiya (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lodged F.I.R. on 26.07.2021 against the applicant-Arvind Kumar and other accused persons, namely, Amit and Rina and one unknown woman who are husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased respectively with the allegations inter-alia that love marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the applicant in the year 2014 and from the wedlock of her daughter and the applicant two children, who are presently aged about five years and forty days, were born, but after some days of marriage, her in-laws started mounting pressure on her daughter to bring dowry. Her daughter was also assaulted by them but no complaint was made in this regard. F.I.R. also alleges that the deceased had told her elder sister-Preeti that the applicant has illicit relation with some other woman and on protesting, he used to threat her. On 19.07.2021 at

¶9

about 3:00 am police informed her that her daughter and her two children had died in suspicious circumstances.

¶10

4- It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the prosecution case itself marriage of the applicant with the deceased was a love marriage, therefore, there was no question for demand of dowry. The information about the incident dated 18.07.2021 was already received to the family members of the deceased on 19.07.2021 but F.I.R. was lodged after about seven days on 26.07.2021. It is next submitted that after culmination of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. against the applicant only and other coaccused persons have been exonerated and final report has been submitted in their favour as their complicity has been found false. Referring the postmortem reports of the deceased and her two children, it is submitted that, cause of their death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Much emphasis has been given by contending that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. Thought, it is a case of suicide but the applicant being husband of the deceased and father of two children has been implicated in this case without any iota of evidence of abetment and instigation on his part. Lastly, it is submitted by 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 28.07.2021 and he has criminal history of one case in which he is on bail, which is explained in Paragraph No. 31 of the bail application and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶11

5- Per contra , learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but he could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant, whereas, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that Investigating OfÏcer has not conducted fair investigation and on the next day of lodging F.I.R.,

¶12

he has converted the case under Section 306 I.P.C. and 498-A I.P.C., but he also could not point out any direct evidence against the applicant.

¶13

6- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute that marriage of the deceased was a love marriage with the applicant. As per postmortem reports cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 306 and 498-A I.P.C. against the applicant on 22.10.2021 and there is no positive and direct evidence of abetment or instigation against the applicant which are necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

¶14

7- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶15

8- Let the applicant- Arvind Malik , 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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶17

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶19

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶20

9- In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶21

10- It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.5.2023 Kashifa

¶23

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

Arvind Malik v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Malik v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

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

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramjanam @ Majhi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Siyaram Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others