Allowed

Rahul Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC8 May 2024/176/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a dowry death (Sections 498A, 304-B IPC) trial where the deceased died by antemortem hanging, no dowry demand alleged in the FIR or admitted by P.W.-1, and the applicant had been jailed over a year and eleven months with only four witnesses examined. Bail was granted on grounds of delay in trial and parity.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties to satisfaction of court concerned, subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-adjournment.

Rahul Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35761

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 176 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajdeep Singh learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Session Trial No.682 of 2022, Case Crime No.77 of 2022 under Sections 498A,304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kauriya District Gonda.

¶8

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that firstly, the father of the deceased had given an information to the police regarding death of his daughter which information was entered into GD, later on the same was converted into FIR. He has submitted that in the FIR, the father of the deceased has mentioned that after getting information that his daughter committed suicide, he had given information to the police but there is no allegation of dowry demand against the applicant and his family members. An inquest was conducted on 02.05.2022 on the same day and the father of the deceased was present at the time of inquest.

¶9

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased committed suicide by hanging because there was some dispute between the deceased and the applicant on the issue of cooking food and the cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that two superficial marks were found on the person of the deceased; (1) abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm on left leg, anterior aspect of 7 cm below left knee and (2) abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm anterior aspect of right leg 15 cm below right knee.

¶11

It has been submitted that such injuries were caused while the body of the deceased was loaded in tampo. He has also invited attention of this court towards inquest which does not indicate any injury except the ligature mark on the neck. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that four witnesses were examined before the trial court i.e. Bhulai, father of the deceased (P.W.-1), Jogesh,brother of the deceased (P.W.-2), Smt. Kalawati, mother of the deceased (P.W.-3) and Km. Soni, sister of the deceased (P.W.-4) and in the cross-examination, P.W.-1 has admitted that no dowry demand was ever made by the applicant and his mother. He has further stated in the cross-examination,P.W.-1 has stated that he did not mention the dowry demand of Rs.50,000/- and motorcycle in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 24.05.2022. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and anothe r passed in Petition for special Leave to Appeal ( Crl.) No. 3486 of 2022. The order is quoted below:-

¶12

"1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the state of Uttar Pradesh and perused the the material available on record, including the counter affidavit filed by the state.

¶13

2. Taking into consideration the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is reported to have suffered incarceration for over 1 year 4 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, which fact could not be controverted by the learned counsel appearing for the state, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶14

3. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be pleased on bail, subject to such terms and conditions which the trial court shall deem fit and find appropriate to impose upon him.

¶15

4. The special leave petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.

¶16

5.Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of."

¶17

5. On the strength of the aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, he has submitted that

¶18

Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the incarceration period of one year and four months whereas the case of the applicant is that he has undergone in jail more than one year and eleven months and out of 18 witnesses, only four witnesses have been examined before the trial court and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future.

¶19

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that it is case of dowry death and four witnesses have been examined and they have also supported the prosecution case, therefore, the bail of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶20

7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and the cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, the argument that applicant is in jail more than one year and eleven months and the argument that the case of the applicant is covered with the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Sahu (supra),therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶21

8. The bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶22

9. Let applicant, namely, Rahul Vishwakarma , be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during

¶26

trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶28

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶29

Order Date :- 8.5.2024 dk/

¶30

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

A.R. Enterprises Thru. Its Proprietor Saiyyad Nadeem Shahid Alias Nadeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Parashu Ram Rawat and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Aniruddh Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Nitin Kishor @ Mohan and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Sangeeta Devi Vs State of U.P and Anr.

Pradeep Kumar Pandey and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.