Ranu Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:178

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4654 of 2023

Applicant :- Ranu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

Rejoinder afÏdavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the informant's sister was married to the applicant on 20.5.2022, however the matrimonial family which includes all the family members used to harass her and ridicule her for dowry. It was also stated that on 15.7.2022, the sister of the informant was killed on account of the demand of dowry. The entire family members were implicated with the offence in question. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is further argued that in terms of the post mortem report which is on record, the cause of death is shown as asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. He further argued that even the injury report do not reveal any physical injury apart from the ligature mark which is cause of death. He argued that apart from the general allegations levelled against the entire family, there is no specific allegation that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to any physical or mental cruelty in connection with any demand of dowry which resulted in cause of death. He further argued that the expression 'soon before the death' used under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. has to be tested with the idea of proximity test which is missing in the present case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaliyaperumal and another Vs. State of Tamilnadu : AIR 2003 SC 3828. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal

¶10

history and he is in jail since 22.7.2022 and the mother-in-law and father-in-law have been enlarged on bail through orders which are contained in Annexure No.6 annexed to the present bail application..

¶11

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand, strongly opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the death has occurred within a very short span of two months from the date of marriage, as such the bail application should be rejected.

¶12

In view of the contention raised at the bar, prima facie, though the allegations of being harassed for demand of dowry are present in the F.I.R., a material to form an opinion that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to any mental or physical harassment in relation to demand of dowry are missing. The post mortem report on record also does not indicate any physical injury apart from the ligature mark which is also the cause of death as indicated in the post mortem report. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 22.7.2022.

¶13

Considering the arguments as raised above coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Ranu be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.696 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barbanki, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

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

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence

¶18

similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶19

(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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.1.2024

¶21

Shukla

¶22

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

Ranu v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Sagar Vishwakarma Vs Presiding Officer,Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,Lko. and 2 Others

Shyam Rang and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayet Raj, Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

M/S A.S. Constructions,Lakhimpur Kheri Thru. Proprietor Daravari Vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and 3 Others

Manvendra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Vinod Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Mukesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.