Dismissed

Amit Dubey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2023BAIL/58469/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a bail application lodged under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC. The court held that as the husband of the deceased who died due to strangulation, the applicant failed to discharge his burden to explain her death in a plausible manner.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant not entitled to be released on bail.

Amit Dubey Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58469 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Ashutosh Kumar Shukla,Vijai Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhand Pratap Tripathi,Sanjay Singh,Shivam Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhand Pratap Singh and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsels for the informant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case No.6346 of 2022 in relation to Case Crime No.12 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Barwapatti, District Mirzapur during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and his family members under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC and according to the FIR, marriage of the elder daughter of the informant was performed with applicant about 10 years before and with the wedlock of applicant and daughter of the informant, 2 children were born and after marriage for want of dowry his daughter was being continuously harassed by her mother-in-law and about one month before the in-laws of his daughter beaten her and thereafter police arrived and after settling the dispute returned.

¶10

It is further mentioned in the FIR that on 8.2.2022 at about

¶11

7.10 hours applicant informed on mobile phone of the son of

¶12

informant that his daughter has committed suicide and thereafter when informant arrived at the house of applicant then found that his home was locked and thereafter applicant informed the informant that he has done the cremation. In the FIR it is further mentioned that after committing the murder of the daughter of the informant, her bead body has been concealed by applicant and his family members.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation against the applicant is totally false and baseless and being husband applicant has been implicated in the present matter and in fact applicant neither demanded any dowry nor he ever tortured his wife, i.e,deceased. He further submits that as marriage of applicant and deceased was performed about 10 years before and with their wedlock 2 children were born, therefore, there was no question of applicant to harass his wife for want of dowry.

¶14

He further submits that even as per the FIR applicant himself informed the informant. However, the real fact is that applicant informed the informant that his daughter, i.e., wife of applicant has missed somewhere and thereafter he arrived and after recovery of the dead body of the wife, applicant has falsely been implicated in the present matter.

¶15

He further submits that although during investigation, as per prosecution, on the pointing out of applicant dead body of his wife was recovered from river but this fact is totally false as no recovery of the dead body of his wife was recovered on his pointing out by the Police and in fact after recovery of the dead body prosecution has set up totally false story of recovery.

¶16

He further submits that this fact is evident even itself from the perusal of the recovery memo as well as the site plan. He further submits that from the perusal of the recovery memo it appears that

¶17

when Police arrived at the place of alleged recovery along with applicant then applicant informed the Police that this is the place from where he thrown the dead body of his wife in the river and thereafter it has been stated in the recovery memo that white sack which is visible the dead body of his wife is lying in it but site plan shows that the dead body of the wife of applicant was recovered from in side the river from 20 feet below and there was no question for the applicant to visualize the white sack and this fact clearly suggests that the story of recovery of the dead body is totally false.

¶18

He further submits that actually wife of applicant used to go out from her home frequently even without informing the applicant and this is the reason that when her murder was committed then he could not aware about her death and he informed this fact to the informant that his wife is missing somewhere.

¶19

He next submits that although post mortem report of the deceased shows that she died due to homicidal death as cause of death is strangulation but there is no evidence on record which can show that applicant is the person, who strangulated her and it is a case under Section 302 IP, therefore, no presumption can be drawn against the applicant.

¶20

He further submits that applicant in the present matter is in jail since 9.2.2022.

¶21

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsels for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the husband of the deceased and admittedly deceased and applicant both resided in the same house and post mortem shows that his wife died due to strangulation and he failed to discharge his burden to explain that how his wife was

¶22

strangulated and instead of doing so he set up a totally false story and informed the informant that actually deceased committed suicide and this shows the guilty mind of applicant.

¶23

Learned counsel for the informant further argued that applicant not only confessed his guilt but on his pointing out dead body of his wife was recovered from in side the river and if the recovery memo has not been properly prepared by Investigating Officer then no benefit at this stage can be extended in favour of applicant and, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶25

It is a case in which wife of applicant died due to strangulation and post mortem report suggests that it is a case of homicidal death and the case of applicant is that he and deceased lived together in the same house, therefore, it was the duty of applicant to explain the death of his wife although by stating that his wife used to go very frequently outside the home without informing him applicant tried to discharge his burden but in my considered view, merely on the basis of such vague and general defence it cannot be said that applicant is having no responsibility to explain the death of his wife which was homicidal one and has discharged his burden.

¶26

Further, on the pointing out of applicant, as per prosecution, dead body of his wife was recovered from in side the river. Although from the perusal of the recovery memo and the site plan it appears that there was some contradiction with regard to recovery of dead body of deceased but if Investigating Officer failed to prepare recovery memo in proper language then accused cannot be benefited.

¶27

As the applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation and, it is case of murder and applicant failed to discharge his burden in proper and plausible manner, therefore, in my view, applicant, who is the husband of the deceased, is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. 19. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court while deciding the instant bail application will not have any impact on the trial court while deciding the trial.

¶29

Order Date :- 28.4.2023 SKM

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Dubey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Dubey 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

Liyaqat Vs State of U.P.

Syed Sagar Abbasi Alias Nehal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Baljeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Karanpal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Chand Vs State of U.P.

Dhananjay Patel Vs State of U.P.