Allowed

Rangilal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024/3820/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail allowed in a case FIR created in Balrampur, wherein allegations of dowry harassment and burning of deceased were not reflected in post-mortem. There was no specific material of dowry harassment prior to death and thus bail granted.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail allowed. Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each subject to conditions of attending hearings and not tampering with evidence.

Rangilal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50429

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3820 of 2024 Applicant :- Rangilal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Qazi Mohd.Ahmad,Mohd. Ghufran Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Iqbal Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

By means of the present bail application the accused applicant seeks bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.322 of 2023, under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali Utraula, DistrictBalrampur.

¶7

In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant about three years ago and thereafter the applicant used to demand of dowry and on 25.10.2023 the applicant had burnt her to death after sprinkling petrol and an information was given on the next date i.e. on 26.10.2023 at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening to the informant that her daughter had died.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant in the light of the said allegation argues that the applicant had taken the victim to the hospital as is evident from the memo which is on record as annexure-6. He further argues that the applicant had stated before the medical authorities that sari worn by the deceased fell on a mosquito coil and caught fire because of which she sustained injuries. He next argues that in the inquest report the applicant as well as family members of the deceased were present as is evident from the inquest memo, he then draws my attention towards the postmortem report wherein no smell of petrol or other material was indicated in the said report which included that the victim died on account of ante-mortem burn injuries. There is no dying declaration of the victim on record. He thus concludes the arguments by stating that the contention with the F.I.R. are contrary to the material inasmuch as there is smell of petrol as well as in the F.I.R., there is allegation of dowry and nothing was expressed while the inquest report was prepared. He also argues that the applicant has one child aged about three years. The applicant, who is in jail since 28.10.2023 and has no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application by arguing that the applicant as well as child and the victim were sleeping on the same bed and strangely only the victim was burnt and nothing happened to the bed or the applicant or the child. He further argues that the applicant being husband was responsible and thus considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application should be rejected.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. adopts the same arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the informant, however, he states that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

Considering the submissions made at the bar, in terms of the F.I.R. the allegations of sprinkling of petrol were levelled which are not corroborated by the post-mortem report, the applicant had taken the victim to the hospital allegedly, burn injuries had taken place on account of coming in contact with the mosquito coil, considering all these facts coupled with the fact that there is no specific material against the applicant to allege that the applicant had harassed the victim either physically or mentally soon before the death in relation to demand of dowry, as such the applicant, who is in judicial custody since 28.10.2023 and has no criminal history, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Thus, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant-Rangilal be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 24.7.2024 akhilesh/-

¶17

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

Rangilal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangilal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Afzal Quraishi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ashok Chaurasia @ Ashok Kumar Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sujeet Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Gopi Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Aakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.