Allowed

Ritesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC16 May 2025BAIL/7324/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 7324 of 2024; applicant Ritesh; Judge Shree Prakash Singh; order dated 16.5.2025; bail granted in dowry death case; Sections 498A and 304B IPC; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Case Crime No.0037 of 2024; P.S.-Tadiyawan, District Hardoi; wife/deceased hanged 19.1.2024 over alleged dowry demand; delayed FIR by 24 hours; no

What did the court decide?

Bail granted: applicant Ritesh to be released on bail during trial in Case Crime No.0037 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the cour

Ritesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7324 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Ritesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Gupta,Ajai Vikram Singh,Laxmi Narayan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.0037 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Tadiyawan, District - Hardoi.

¶8

Prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was solemnized with the applicant on 7.5.2023 as per the Hindu rites and rituals and subsequently the present applicant including his family members started torturing and demanding the dowry from the daughter of the complainant. It is also alleged that on 19.1.2024 at around 5 pm the daughter of the complainant was hanged for the reason of non-fulfilling the demand of dowry.

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant and the deceased were living in harmonious atmosphere and there was no dispute in between them. He added that all of a sudden, the deceased hanged herself and the information with respect to death of the deceased was given by the applicant and his family members to the family of the deceased. He submits that there was no evidence that dowry was ever demanded from the family members of the deceased or she was ever subjected to cruelty. Adding his arguments, he submits that from the post mortem report also, it is evident that there was no ante mortem injury over the body of the deceased. Further in the opinion of the doctor, who prepared the post mortem report, except the mark of the injury over the neck, there was no injury over the body of the deceased. He also added that prior to the present incident, there was no complaint against the applicant or his family members and there was no intent for him to commit the offence

¶10

as is alleged in the F.I.R. He next added that the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant after 24 hours and no reason for delay has been explained either in the F.I.R. or subsequently. He also submitted that the Investigating Officer, without collecting the cogent piece of evidence, has filed the charge sheet. He submits that the mother-in-law has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5436 of 2024 on 21.5.2024. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he was never involved in committing the offence. Further argued that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 21.1.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and he is husband and in the matrimonial house, the death of the deceased has occurred in unnatural condition. He further added that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was found in committing the offence and as such he is not entitled to any relief.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the F.I.R. is delayed by 24 hours and no plausible explanation is given; there is no cogent piece of evidence on record that there was any complaint prior to the incident and further there was no complaint regarding demand of dowry or torturing the deceased; as per the post mortem report, there is no ante mortem injury over the body of the deceased; there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 20 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.1.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Ritesh involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution

¶16

evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶17

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶19

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Ram Murti

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ritesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Shailendra Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs Govt. of India

Sanjay Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raj Kumar Gautam Alias Raj Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Udai Jhilu Hajanker Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jiledar Paswan @ Umesh Kumar Paswan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

K.P. Harijan @ Mahanth Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.