Dismissed

Arman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024BAIL/3130/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench rejected a bail application filed by Arman in a case involving Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The court found that a post-mortem report indicated stab wounds, precluding bail. The court directed the trial to conclude within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to conclude within six months.

Arman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56074

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3130 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Arman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anubhav Srivastava,Mohd. Shahid Akhtar,Pankaj Kumar Tripathi,Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 234 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Rampur Mathura, District- Sitapur.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case as on the date of incident, he was at Mehmoodabad, but he was not present at the place of incident, thereafter, charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. He next submits that till today only two witnesses have been examined, but they did not depose any demand of dowry.

¶9

3.1. Relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the cases of State of Kerala vs. Raneef reported in Crl. Appeal No. 03 of 2011 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in Crl. Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 and on the decision of this Hon'ble Court passed in Bail Application No. 3368 of 2023 and Bail Application No. 473 of 2024 , learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that long confinement is a ground for bail. It is lastly submitted that applicant is in jail since 26.06.2021 and in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

4. Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that deceased was wife of the applicant, who was killed by him by stabbing, thereafter, knife was also recovered from his possession. He further submits that the cases relied by learned counsel for the applicant are not applicable in

¶11

the present case. He also submits that the husband is custodian as well as guardian of his wife, who himself killed his wife, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶12

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the bail application, F.I.R., post-mortem report, inquest report as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that there is a stab wound found on the neck of the deceased and one contusion is also found on the front of her right thigh. In such circumstances, no case for bail is made out.

¶13

Thus, the bail application is rejected .

¶14

6. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial in question expeditiously, if possible, within a period of six months. In case the trial in question is not concluded within the stipulated time, then it is open to the applicant to move fresh bail application.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Arpan

¶16

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

Arman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Ji Vs Dr. Rajnish Dube, Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko.

Ram Saran Vs Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Sub Divisional Magistrate, Distt. Barabanki and Another

Prem Chandra Soni Vs Shri M.Dev Raj, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Govt. Lko and Others

Durgesh Chandra Srivastav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Min. of Energy, Lucknow and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Dubey and Others vs Sri Sardar Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh

Pawan Kumar vs Parmanand and Others