Allowed

Prem Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024BAIL/2460/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application challenging arrest in a dowry death case, the Single Judge allowed bail citing lack of criminal history and ante-mortem hanging as cause of death without visible injuries. The Court ordered release subject to bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Prem Kumar Jaiswal on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000 each.

Prem Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28093

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2460 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Prem Kumar Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rishabh Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Counter affidavits filed today on behalf of State and informant are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rishabh Srivastava learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0276 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station-Gilauta District-Shrawasti.

¶9

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant on 10.03.2023 and sufficient dowry was also given and subsequently she died on 29.10.2023 on account of harassment by the entire matrimonial family.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the postmortem report which indicates the cause of death as ante mortem hanging and apart from the ligature mark, no other injuries are visible on the body of the deceased. He also draws my attention to the statement of the independent witnesses who stated that they have heard that the victim wanted to go to her to meet her family on karwachauth which was rejected by her matrimonial family, as such, she has committed suicide. He, thus, argued that the applicant was in custody since 31.10.2023 may be enlarged on bail as he has no criminal history.

¶11

Learned counsel for the informant strongly opposed the bail prayer while arguing that this specific statement was given by the informant which is on record to the effect that dowry was being demanded, for which, before the Panchayat, an agreement was also entered into and as such, it was a clear case of dowry death and thus, the bail application should be rejected. He

¶12

further argued that none of the witnesses had seen the body hanging and, thus, the bail application should be rejected.

¶13

Counsel for the applicant, in rejoinder, argued that none of the Panchayat witnesses referred to the statement of the informant have been arrayed as witness in the chargesheet.

¶14

Considering the submissions made at bar and recorded above, the cause of death is ante mortem hanging, no visible marks of injury are seen on the body. Apart from the statement of the informant, there is no specific averment that soon before the death, the victim was subjected to any mental or physical harassment in relation to demand of dowry and considering the statement of the independent witnesses, the applicant is in custody since 31.10.2023 has no criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant -Prem Kumar Jaiswal be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.4.2024

¶20

Harshita

¶21

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

Prem Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. 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

Aqeel Ahmad and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri and Others

Ameen vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Himanshu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kanhaiya Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Rajani Sahu @ Rangni Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Jamuna Prasad and 3 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Ayodhya and 3 Others