Allowed

Dharmendra @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024/911/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application allowed. The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, holding that the cause of death (strangulation) was inconsistent with injuries noted in the post-mortem report, making the allegations general. No material showed harassment before death; applicant had no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of applicant on personal bond with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, subject to standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4647

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 911 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dharmendra @ Sonu 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 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.358 of 2021, under Section 498A, 304B, 323, 506, 302 IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mankapur, District Gonda.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that the sister of the informant was married to the applicant in the year 2021 and sufficient dowry was given. Although, allegations that the matrimonial family used to demand dowry were made and on 02.12.2021 it was informed that the sister had expired, the allegations of murder were made against the entire matrimonial family.

¶9

4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in terms of the post-mortem report, apart from the ligature mark, three abrasions were seen on the face and neck, and contusions were seen on the left and right elbow. The cause of death was disclosed as Asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation. It is argued that on the basis of the injuries as depicted in the postmortem report, ante mortem strangulation was not possible. He further argues that all the other co-accused have been enlarged on bail and the applicant is in custody since 04.12.2021 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶10

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶11

6. Considering the nature of the allegations being general and there being no material to demonstrate that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to any physical or mental harassment in relation to demand of dowry coupled with the fact that the cause of death being shown as strangulation not being supported by the post-mortem on record, a case for bail is made out. As such, the applicant who has no criminal history and is in custody since 04.12.2021, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶12

7. Let the applicant Dharmendra @ Sonu be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of 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 :- 17.1.2024

¶17

nishant

¶18

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

Dharmendra @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra @ Sonu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Mohammad Imran Vs Narcotics Control Bureau Lucknow

Shiva @ Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Pinki Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Chhotu Khan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Shadab @ Sadab Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.