Motilal Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66268

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4418 of 2024

Applicant :- Motilal Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Bajpai,Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Suresh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.188 of 2023, under Section 498A, 304B, 302 IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Gaindas Buzurg, District Balrampur.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that daughter of the informant was married in June, 2021 with the applicant and after the marriage, the family members of the applicant used to taunt her for dowry and a demand of dowry of Rs.12 lakh was being made and on 21.11.2023 information was received that the daughter of the informant was unwell and has died. It was stated that the informant apprehended that the family members had killed the daughter of the informant.

¶9

4. In the light of the said allegation, learned counsel for the applicant argues that the panchnama was done of the body during which Tehsildar as well as sister of the victim were also present in which no injury was noticed on the body of the deceased and a joint opinion was expressed that as the victim was suffering from tuberculosis, she has died. However, in the postmortem report, two injuries were noticed which are contusion injuries present on the right side of the neck and contusion present on the left elbow, and as the hyoid bone was found to be fractured, the cause of death was ascertained as ante mortem throttling. It is argued that there is a huge variance in the panchnama and the postmortem report. He further draws my attention to the statement of the sister of the deceased who had stated that her sister was suffering from tuberculosis. It is lastly argued that the applicant is in custody since 23.11.2023 and till date only the charge has been framed on 06.08.2024 and despite order, the prosecution witnesses have not come so far, as such, it is argued that the trial has not even started. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application by arguing that panchnama , not reflecting the injury, cannot be to the benefit of the applicant as the injury depicted in the postmortem report may not have been revealed when the clothes were on. He further argues that as the hyoid bone was fractured, primafacie , the cause of death has been correctly ascertained as ante mortem throttling. He lastly argues that as the death had occurred within one year of marriage, the bail application deserves to be rejected as the applicant is the husband.

¶11

6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the medical opinion wherein it was demonstrated that the victim was suffering from tuberculosis.

¶12

7. Considering the material on record, prima-facie , although the postmortem report concludes that the cause of death was ante mortem throttling, there are inconsistencies in noticing the injury in the panchnama and the postmortem report; as per the documents also it is clear that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis. Irrespective of the cause of death, which shall be seen at the time of trial, prima-facie, the applicant has spent almost one year in judicial custody and only the charge has been framed and none of the witnesses has been examined, as such, the applicant who has no criminal history and is in custody since 23.11.2023, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶13

8. Let the applicant Motilal Chauhan be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 nishant

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Motilal Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motilal Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Atul Yadav @ Pradeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lko.

Dhiru @ Dhirendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home , Lko.

Jagdish and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

U.P. State Industrial Development Authority,Trans Ganga City,Unnao Thru. Its Senior Project Officer vs Deepak Dwivedi

Smt. Parwati vs State of U.P. Thur. Addl. Chief Secy Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko.