Dismissed

Sumit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024CRLA/6205/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of regular bail in a case of murder and dowry death of the accused's wife. The court noted recovery of the weapon from the accused and FSL reports showing blood stains on recovered articles, found no illegality in the trial court's order, and dismissed the appeal without expressing opinion on merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sumit vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134861

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6205 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Sumit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satiram Singh Yadav,Shivangi Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

Sumit-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bijnor, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 170 of 2022, under Sections 302, 304B, 498A I.P.C. and sections 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3(2)5 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor, has been rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has argued that the complainant namely Rajpal Singh has falsely implicated the appellant with the allegation that his daughter namely Rashmi was stabbed to death by the appellant-accused (husband of the deceased), at her parental house. Learned counsel has argued that the marriage between the appellant and the victim was a love marriage who belonged to different castes, therefore, it is not a case where the appellant would ever ask for dowry from his wife or the complainant. Learned counsel has further argued that after framing of charges on 22.10.2022, the material witnesses have been examined who are the parents and brother of the deceased, therefore, the appellant be released on bail who is in custody since his arrest on 28.5.2022. He submits that the Special Court, Bijnor

¶8

has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case while refusing bail to the accused. He prays that the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 be set-aside and the appellant be released on bail.

¶9

The prayer is opposed by learned State Counsel who has argued that after marriage of the complainant's daughter with the appellant in December 2021, the couple resided together for a short period as on account of maltreatment and harassment, the victim had started residing with parents at her parental house. Learned State Counsel has referred to the statement of the father and brother of the deceased and submitted that the appellant-accused came to their house on 26.5.2022 and had again demanded a motorcycle, but his father-in-law tried to make him understand that being poor they cannot afford to meet with his demand. He further argued that the accused gave stab blows on the neck of the victim, and the weapon used in the crime has been recovered from the appellant. He submits that during investigation strong evidence regarding involvement of the accused in the crime has been collected and considering the same, the Special Court, Bijnor has rightly refused the concession of bail to the accused. He prays that the appeal be dismissed.

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that during investigation the weapon of offence was recovered from the accused and the vest worn by him was also sent for Forensic Science Laboratory analysis. A report by Forensic Science Laboratory, Moradabad dated 10.11.2022 and 28.04.2023 has been placed on record through a short counter affidavit dated 14.8.2024 filed by the learned State Counsel which shows that the recovered articles from the accused contain blood stain. The complainant and the other

¶11

witnesses have levelled specific allegations against the accused, therefore, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for releasing the appellant on bail. A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 would show that the trial Court has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case carefully while refusing to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant. Thus, the order dated 21.07.2023 does not suffer from any illegality, and no interference is warranted by exercise of appellate powers.

¶12

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of this case, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 Shiv

¶14

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

Sumit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sumit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Raghuveer Singh and Another vs State of Up and Another

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

Subash Chandra vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash vs State of Up and Another

Ankur vs State of U.P. and Another