Dismissed

Vijay Paswan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023BAIL/54351/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Misc. Bail Application involving allegations under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act related to dowry death, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad declined to grant bail, noting the severity of the offence and the deceased dying within the applicant's precincts, while directing expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order was dismissed. Expeditious trial within one year directed.

Vijay Paswan Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54351 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Paswan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Shukla,Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today by the learned AGA is taken on record.

¶6

Learned counsel does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed today by the learned AGA.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant annexing the order-sheet of the court below, is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2018, U/S 498-A, 328, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rasara, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Neelam Devi, daughter of the informant as per Hindu Rites and Rituals about three years before her death. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of motorcycle and a golden chain as dowry and as such leading her to death on 19.04.2018.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The trial is moving at a snail's pace as even the charge could be framed on 08.03.2021 only and no prosecution witnesses have been examined to date. There is no evidence whatsoever against the applicant. The co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.07.2019. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim had died after consuming aluminium phosphide and the viscera report categorically indicates the same. The deceased was expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and he is the main assailant and, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶15

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶16

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the Trial Court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Siddhant

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Paswan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Paswan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Amit Adjariya Vs State of U.P.

Annu Widow Vs State of U.P.

Prabal Agnihotri Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Chauhan Vs State of U.P.