Dismissed

Rahul @ Upendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2023BAIL/56126/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Krishan Pahal rejected a bail application filed by an accused charged under Sections 498A IPC, Section 304-B IPC, and D.P. Act in a dowry-harassment case that turned fatal. The court directed the lower court to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to be completed within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56126 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul @ Upendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Solanki,Ansar Ahmad,Avinash Kumar Verma,Santosh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2018, U/S 498A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kalpi, District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant (deceased) as per Hindu rites on 1.5.2015 and he is stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry of Rs. 4 lakhs from her and thereby, is stated to have sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set her afire on 13.11.2018 after 2.00 pm. The deceased is stated to have called up her brother at 2.00 pm stating that the applicant and other family members are likely to cause her death. The injured was taken for treatment at Kalpi, wherefrom, she was referred to Orai District Hospital and from there, she was taken to Jhansi Medical College and thereupon she was taken to Birla Hospital, Gwalior. The sister of the informant is stated to have sustained 75% deep burn injuries and was being treated there, as such, the FIR was lodged on 8.12.2018 at 2.50 pm. The deceased is said to have expired on 11.12.2018.

¶9

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. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The case was committed for trial on 14.8.2019 and the charge could be framed on 11.2.2020

¶10

only. Since the framing of charge and till date, no prosecution witness has been summoned.

¶11

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. Learned counsel has stated that the fundamental rights of the applicant stands violated as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as he is languishing in jail for more than four years i.e. since 5.3.2019. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a dying declaration of the deceased person, which categorically indicates that it was the applicant, who had sprinkled kerosene oil on her and had set her afire on 13.11.2018 at about 5.00 pm. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the date and time corroborate the prosecution story alleged in the FIR. It is next stated that the delay in lodging the FIR is explained in the FIR itself, as the informant was busy in undertaking the treatment of his sister.

¶13

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, the 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.

¶14

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶15

However, it is directed that the court below may proceed with the trial and reach at the logical conclusion expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.3.2023 Shalini

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul @ Upendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul @ Upendra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Anjani Chourasiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Preeti Vs State of U.P.

Sameer Vs State of U.P.