Dismissed¶¶20

Krishnapal Alias Kishan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2025BAIL/1603/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected - Allahabad High Court (Sameer Jain, J.) - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 1603 of 2025 - Case Crime No. 90 of 2023 - Sections 498A, 304-B, 323, 302 IPC; 3/4 D.P. Act - P.S. Sunngarhi, District Kasganj - FIR dated 11.11.2023 - wife murdered within nine months of marriage - dowry demand motorcycle and Rs. 1,00,000/- - postmortem: nine injuries, death by smothering - suicide defence (epilepsy, hysteria, depression) held prima facie totally false - no medical prescriptions annexed - applicant in jail since 17.11.2023 - counsel Vishvajit Tiwari, Yogesh Mishra; AGA Shatrughan Yadav - Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:8613.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances discussed, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail; the bail application is accordingly rejected. ¶¶19

Krishnapal Alias Kishan vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8613

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1603 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Krishnapal Alias Kishan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishvajit Tiwari,Yogesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vishvajit Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.90 of 2023, under Section 498A, 304-B, 323, 302 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sunngarhi, District Kasganj, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.11.2023 against applicant and his sister and mother and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant in February, 2023 but from the dowry given by him applicant and his family members were not happy and they tortured her for additional demand of a motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/- and on 11.11.2023 informant received information that applicant and his family members committed the murder of his daughter.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry and torture, he has been made accused in the present matter along with his family members.

¶10

He further submits that actually deceased was suffering with epilepsy and hysteria and she was highly disturbed and depressed and in depression she committed suicide and immediately after the incident applicant side informed the informant and however, they arrived but after arrival they lodged false FIR against the applicant and his family members.

¶11

He further submits that even it appears that FIR of the present case is based on vague allegation of demand of dowry as it is not

¶12

mentioned in FIR that what was the demand of dowry.

¶13

He further submits that there was absolutely no occasion for the applicant to cause the death of his wife.

¶14

He next submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 17.11.2023 i.e. for last more than one year.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife was brutally murdered in his home within nine months from her marriage.

¶16

He further submits that postmortem report of the deceased suggest that deceased sustained as many as nine injuries and her cause of death was smothering and, therefore, prima-facie it reflects that a wrong and baseless defence has been taken by the applicant in paragraph no.-7 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and, therefore, the instant bail application should be dismissed.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

Applicant is husband of the deceased and it appears that his wife has been murdered in his house within nine months from her marriage, however, as per applicant deceased was suffering with epilepsy and hysteria and due to her disease she was under deep depression and, therefore, she committed suicide but defence taken by the applicant in paragraph no.-7 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application prima facie appears to be totally false as according to the postmortem report deceased sustained as many as nine injuries and she died due to smothering. Further, along with instant bail application, no medical prescriptions of the deceased have been annexed.

¶19

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant is rejected.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.1.2025/Neeraj

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishnapal Alias Kishan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnapal Alias Kishan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Lal Yadav vs State of U.P.

Abhiramjeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rohtash vs State of U.P.

Shivbahadur vs State of U.P.

Geeta vs State of U.P.