Dismissed

Alok Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home, Lko

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2024/671/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected the bail application of an accused面临 dowry harassment and murder charges. The court held that no case for indulgence was made out based on the postmortem report and interlocutory statements. It remanded the matter to the trial court to examine the applicant's daughters within three months before considering a second bail application.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; Trial court directed to examine two daughters of the applicant within three months before applicant can move second bail application.

Alok Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14723

¶2

RESERVED ON 15.2.2024

¶3

DELIVERED ON 20.2.2024

¶4

Court No. - 14

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 671 of 2023

¶6

Applicant :- Alok Kumar Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. Of Home, Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sulkhan Singh,Amar Nath Mishra,Prashansa Singh,Shiv Prakash Dwivedi,Suresh Kumar Mishra

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶9

1. Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶10

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

¶11

3. The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.317 of 2022 under Section 498A, 323, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow.

¶12

4. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the informant has married his daughter Arti on 21-06-2009 with Alok Tripathi (the applicant) as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. After marriage, due to demand of dowry, the applicant and his family members were tortured his daughter physically and mentally. The daughter of the informant has made complaint to him several times and due to which the applicant used to beat her. On 01.06.2022 at 7.31 a.m. mother-in-law of the deceased told

¶13

informant's grandson that Arti fell ill at night and died in midway of hospital. After getting information, from the informant's side his elder daughter Rama Shukla, grandson Ashish Shukla and Mohit Shukla reached at Gayatri Nagar and they saw that Arti's dead body is lying on earth inside the house and signs of grievous injuries are found on her neck and body.

¶14

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent has been falsely implicated. The mother of the accused/applicant gave the information of the incident to the family members of the deceased. The applicant was present during inquest. The mother-in-law and dewar of the deceased were also inquest witnesses. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. It is submitted that as per the opinion of the doctor the injuries on the body of the deceased are simple in nature. The deceased has committed suicide on her own. The mother-in-law and father-in-law have even purchased a plot in the name of the deceased. Sale deed is on record. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 4.6.2022.

¶15

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer. It has been submitted by learned A.G.A. that in the postmortem there are ten antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased. He further submits that Kritika Tripathi and Kanishka Tripathi both have stated in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that their parents used to fight with each other. He further submits that Kritika Tripathi, daughter of the applicant, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that on one Wednesday in June 2022 she along with her father woke up in the morning. The mother was not there. On the last night all the three of them slept. When she went downstairs she found her mother hanging. She further stated that one day before her father has

¶16

beaten her mother with belt, broom and slapped her. The statement of Sanju Mishra, Vijay Kumar Mishra further show that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. The State Medico Legal Cell in its report, which is on record, has opined as under:-

¶17

"Opinion

¶18

1.Presence of (9) contusion of the deceased body itself confirm antimortem manhandling with the victim.

¶19

2. The ligature mark pattern and shape confirms antemortem hanging but hanging with multiple injury on the deceased body does not exclude forceful hanging rather than suicide."

¶20

7. Perused the record.

¶21

8. On due consideration to the submissions advanced; perusal of the record; the statements of the prosecution witnesses which corroborates the antemortem injuries found in the postmortem report coupled with the opinion of State Medico Legal Cell report, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶22

9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶23

10. Learned trial court is directed to examine the two daughters, named above, of the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶24

11. The applicant is at liberty to move second bail application after the examination of the daughters is over.

¶25

12. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to learned trial court concerned.

¶26

Order Date :- 20.2.2024 Madhu

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alok Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home, Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home, Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imamul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Saurabh Alias Sajan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Susheel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Suraj Gupta Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt, Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Others