Allowed

Raghuveer Singh and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024CRLA/5064/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court set aside an order rejecting an application for regular bail. The court held that without specific evidence of dowry demand and with material witnesses unavailable, further detention was unnecessary, making it a fit case for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite pending charges of dowry death.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 08.04.2024 is set aside. The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is accepted, and the appellants are released on regular bail.

Raghuveer Singh and Another vs State of Up and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:133767

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5064 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Raghuveer Singh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

Raghuveer Singh and Harwati alias Harwatia- Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 8.4.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bijnor, whereby their application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 20 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304B, 313, 323, 506, 120B I.P.C., Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Badhapur, District Bijnor, has been rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that as per allegations by complainant- Smt. Leela Devi, the son of the appellants namely Mahesh had raped her daughter and in this regard a complaint dated 1.5.2023 was given by the prosecutrix, and thereafter marriage of complainant's daughter was solmenized with Mahesh on 15.06.2023. Learned counsel submits that as per FIR even after marriage, the complainant's daughter was raped by her brother-in-law namely Hemraj, and friends of her husband namely Sonu and Rohit. Learned counsel further argued that on 29.12.2023 when complainant's daughter was travelling with

¶8

appellants' son on a motorcycle they met with an accident and suffered injuries which resulted in death of complainant's daughter. He submits that the couple was found lying on the roadside when they were taken to the hospital and after death of complainant's daughter, Mahesh and his parents have been falsely implicated for alleged commission of offences punishable under section 304B, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submits that it is not a case of harassment or demand of dowry, therefore, the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under section 304B IPC would not be made out, but ignoring the defects in the prosecution case, the trial court has refused the concession of bail to the appellants vide impugned order dated 8.4.2024. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set-aside and the appellants be released on bail.

¶9

The prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant who argued that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the two-wheeler driven by Mahesh was struck from behind by any other vehicle, as no damage to the two-wheeler has been noticed. He submits that had it been a case of accident, the complainant's daughter would have suffered injuries on other parts of her body as well, whereas, according to the post mortem report she died as a result of head injuries. Learned counsel for the complainant refers to the FIR and submitted that the complainant's daughter had given complaint before the police during her lifetime regarding her harassment on account of demand of dowry, therefore, the presumption under section 113-B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be attracted and considering the gravity of the offence, the Special Court, Bijnor has rightly refused the concession of bail to the accused-appellant. Lastly, it is prayed that

¶10

the appeal be dismissed.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this court finds that according to the statements of Veer Singh and Karan Singh recorded during investigation the complainant's daughter and her husband (Mahesh) were found lying on the roadside in injured condition when they were taken to the hospital in an ambulance. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant was directed to produce the copy of the complaint dated 11.10.2023 allegedly given by complainant's daughter to police about her harassment and maltreatment by the husband and in-laws and he submitted the copy of the said complaint. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complaint dated 11.10.2023 does not contain any allegation regarding demand of dowry. The charges set-up by the prosecution that the death of the deceased is homicidal or accidental would be tested on the basis of prosecution evidence and the said onus is yet to be discharged, therefore, at this stage, the further detention of the appellants may not be necessary as the conclusion of the trial would consume considerable time. The material witnesses in this case are either the complainant or official witnesses and at present there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. A reading of the impugned order would show that the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Bijnor has erroneously declined the concession of regular bail to the appellants and the said order is not sustainable, as it is a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellants.

¶12

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 is set aside, the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 439

¶13

Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellantsRaghuveer Singh and Harwati alias Harwatia, be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to their furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶14

The appeal is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Shiv

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raghuveer Singh and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuveer Singh and Another v. State of Up 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

Iqrar Ahmad vs State of Up and 2 Others

Satya Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Avsab Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivnandan Yadav @ Kamal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Singh Gautam vs State of U.P. and Another

Preeti Haldar vs State of U.P. and Another