Dismissed

Sundarpata v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024ABAIL/1598/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The bench found a prima facie case of dowry death based on ante mortem injuries, independent witness testimony, and the deceased's death within one year of marriage, rejecting the claim of separate living.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected on the finding that the applicant is a main accused in a case of dowry death.

Sundarpata vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56580

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1598 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sundarpata Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

2. The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.59 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda.

¶8

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State -respondents and perused the record.

¶9

4. Vide order dated 19.07.2024 the applicant was granted interim protection.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has cooperated in the investigation. Charge sheet has been filed. He has no criminal history. It is a case of separate living.

¶11

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. She has further submitted that the deceased died within one year of marriage in unnatural circumstances. Apart from the statements of prosecution witnesses who are family members of the deceased, there are independent witnesses also, who have supported the prosecution case and made allegation of committing cruelty due to demand of dowry against the applicant. The complicity of the applicant is evident from the record. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant regarding proof of separate living is concerned, the same is also falsified by the statement of independent wittiness where it has come into light that the applicant used to spent half of the time at both the addresses, so it cannot be said that the applicant was not residing on the address where the deceased

¶12

died. She also submits that in fact the applicant is the main accused.

¶13

7. Perused the record.

¶14

8. Considering the ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased; role assigned to the accused-applicant by the prosecution witnesses, particularly the independent witlessness and the fact that the deceased died within one year from the date of her marriage in her matrimonial home, prima facie a case for dowry death is made out. The complicity of the applicant is evident and looking to the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application, hence, the application is rejected.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.8.2024 Renu/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sundarpata v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundarpata v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Shiv Pujan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ankit Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arjoo Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home U.P. Lko.

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ajeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Gaurav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others