Dismissed

Digambar @ Lala v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2023BAIL/8256/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench judgment dismissed the bail application of a husband accused under Sections 498A, 323, 304B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The judge rejected the plea due to the advanced stage of trial despite the hostsility of witnesses. The court expedited the trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Digambar @ Lala Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8256 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Digambar @ Lala Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amir Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 31 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case in brief, an F.I.R. was lodged on 02.02.2021 by Vinod Kumar, who is father of Gunjan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') against the present applicant Digambar @ Lala, who is husband of deceased and his eleven other family members for the alleged offence under Section 498A, 323, 304B and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶8

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is husband of the deceased who committed suicide by hanging herself. Applicant has been implicated in this case by making false allegation of demand of dowry against him in the F.I.R., whereas, before the trial court, four prosecution witnesses namely Seema Devi @ Beena Devi, Babita, Rukam Veer Singh and Subhash have been examined but all of them have been declared hostile, therefore, there is bleak chance of conviction of applicant who is languishing in jail since 12.02.2021.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that in this case F.I.R. was lodged on 02.02.2021. Statements of four prosecution witnesses have been recorded before

¶10

the trial court after one year between 08.04.2022 to 11.05.2022. From the tone and tenor of the statement of witnesses, the possibility of winning over them from the accused side cannot be ruled out.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that four prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is proceeding which is at the advanced stage. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶13

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶14

However, considering the detention period of the applicant coupled with the fact that the prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties following the provisions provided under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.3.2023 Kashifa

¶16

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Digambar @ Lala v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar @ Lala 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

Vikas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Faiyaz @ Faiyaz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukhtiyar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P.

Jiyaul Vs State of U.P.