Dismissed

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2023BAIL/6266/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Sections 498A, 304B IPC in a dowry death case, the Court declined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The deceased died by suicide within three months of marriage in the husband's household, making it not a fit case for bail despite claims of false implication. The trial is directed to be concluded within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Trial directed to be concluded within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6266 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Karan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kripa Shankar Tiwari,Shivani Chaudhary

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Shri Kripa Shankar Tiwari, Ms. Shivani Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant and Shri VKS Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 182 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Lalauli, District Fatehpur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the deceased person was solemnized with the applicant as per Hindu rites on 22.04.2022. The applicant and the family members are said to have subjected the deceased cruelty for demand of dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs leading to her death on 17.07.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The members of the family of the applicant were implicated in the said FIR of which six persons have been exonerated by the Police and the two coaccused persons the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant is also entitled for bail as the deceased has committed suicide an she has not been slaughtered. As per the autopsy report, the case of death have found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 21.07.2022.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A./learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased has expired within a period of about three months of her marriage within the precinct of the house of the applicant and the onus lies on the applicant to explain under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and a presumption has to be dispelled by

¶11

the applicant under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, and also taking into consideration the fact that the deceased has expired within a period of three months of her marriage and in the precincts of the house of the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶14

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶15

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order 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.

¶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 :- 21.2.2023 Ashutosh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar 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

Amit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaurav Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Samasveer @ Samsu Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar @ Bantu Vs State of U.P.

Narpat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Ahuja Vs State of U.P.