Allowed

Ram Samujh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024BAIL/10140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of the father-in-law accused in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry harassment and alleged non-consensual relations. The court distinguished the rape allegation due to lack of medical corroboration and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each subject to specific conditions.

Ram Samujh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66010

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10140 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Samujh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Kumar Verma,Vivek Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.268 of 2024, under Section 376, 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Jaidpur, District Barabanki.

¶10

4. In terms of the FIR filed on 25.07.2024 it was alleged that sister of the informant was married to the son of the applicant on 16.02.2022 and sufficient dowry was also given, however, the entire matrimonial family used to harass her for dowry to which the victim refused. Subsequently, on 14.08.2023, the applicant who is father-in-law allegedly insisted that she sleeps with him; no allegation of rape was levelled. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that the applicant used to inappropriately behave with her. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that physical relations were formed with her against her consent. The medical does not corroborate any allegation.

¶11

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶12

6. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR which was initially registered under Section 498A, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the matter appears to be that of marital discord. the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., levelling allegation of rape against the applicant is not corroborated as no injury was found in the medical examination. As such, considering the said facts, the applicant who is in custody since 25.08.2024 and has no criminal history, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶13

7. Let the applicant Ram Samujh be released on bail in

¶14

aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 nishant

¶19

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

Ram Samujh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Samujh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. 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

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.