Dismissed

Ashutosh Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024BAIL/1459/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench rejected the applicant's bail application in a murder case involving unnatural death. The refusal was based on suspicious circumstances surrounding the death, including the failure to inform the father and the unexplained cremation of the deceased's body.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant denied bail.

Ashutosh Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64447

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1459 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ashutosh Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Tripathi,Raghvendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for the applicant does not want to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶8

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.1479 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 302, 201 IPC, Police-Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that marriage of the applicant was performed with the deceased in the year 2014 and no complaint was ever lodged by the deceased or his family members regarding harassment and dowry demand. He has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to household quarrel, deceased died and she was cremated by the applicant and his family members. There is no intention to kill the deceased, as such the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶10

On the other hand, Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is the father of the deceased and no information was received about the death of his daughter. When the complainant asked the whereabouts his daughter, no specific information was given by the applicant and his family members, then he lodged a

¶11

missing report on 29.11.2022. Then again on 12.12.2022, he lodged the FIR after getting information that his daughter was killed by the applicant and his family members and took the dead body of the deceased to Garhmukteshwar in an ambulance and cremated there. The complainant was never informed regarding the said fact. He has submitted that death of the deceased is unnatural and neither the father of the deceased nor any member of his family was informed regarding such incident. He has further submitted that one Sweeper Abhishek has given a statement before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had seen at about 07.30 P.M. on 27.11.2022 taking the dead body of the deceased in Ambulance No. U.P.32 MN 8740 for cremation by the applicant and his family members. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that death of the deceased is quite unnatural and the applicant did not inform about the death of the deceased neither to the complainant nor to his family members.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has also adopted the same arguments which have been pressed by the learned counsel for the complainant.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that the deceased died in the house of the applicant and no information was given by the applicant or his family members regarding death of the deceased and the argument that the death of the deceased is unnatural and the cremation was done without giving information to the family members of the deceased, I do not find it to be a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶14

8.Bail application is accordingly rejected .

¶15

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 dk/

¶17

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

Ashutosh Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Awasthi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Sarvesh Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Meera vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Manjusha Gupta and Another vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Another

Sachin Alias Sachin Kumar and Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Harshit Bhardwaj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow