Dismissed¶14

Sandeep @ Toote v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2023BAIL/741/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 741 of 2020; Sandeep @ Toote v. State of U.P.; Krishan Pahal, J.; decided 6.4.2023; bail rejected; dowry death; Sections 498-A, 304-B, 316 IPC; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Section 32 Evidence Act; dying declaration dated 29.3.2019; Case Crime No. 299 of 2019; P.S. Jhunsi, Prayagraj; hostile witnesses; custody since 25.3.2019; expeditious trial; Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220; Hussain v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused: taking into consideration that there is a dying declaration of the deceased indicating towards the complicity of the applicant in the offence, the court did not find it a fit case for grant of bail. ¶13

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 741 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep @ Toote Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar,Indrajeet Kumar Shukla,Kaushal Mishra,Mohan Lal Pandey,Prem Narayan Singh,Prem Prakash,Ravi Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Shiromani Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Indrajeet Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.299 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 316 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

The present case is of dowry death within a period of seven years of marriage.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that in all eight witnesses have been examined and they have completely resiled from their earlier statements and have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that there is no evidence against the applicant. As the victim had sustained 100% burn injuries and it was the applicant who had taken her to hospital as such he is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.3.2019.

¶10

Perusal of the record indicates that there was a dying declaration of the deceased person recorded on 29.3.2019, whereby there are serious allegations against the applicant and his family members.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground of dying declaration of the deceased person.

¶12

Learned counsel has stated that the dying declaration duly recorded within the parameters of Section 32 of Evidence Act is enough to sustain conviction in the present matter.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is a dying declaration of the deceased person which indicates towards the complicity of the applicant in the said offence, 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, rejected .

¶15

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 6.4.2023 Vikas

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep @ Toote v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep @ Toote v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Alias Sheriya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Chauhan @ Muneeb Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.