Dismissed¶20

Tinku Alias Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2026JAPL/97/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence and bail application rejected in jail appeal against dowry-death conviction; Allahabad High Court; Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal, J.; Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act; Session Trial No. 93 of 2018; Case Crime No. 549 of 2017; Police Station Jalesar, District Etah; appellant husband of deceased; in custody since 02.09.2023; appeal hearing expedited; paper book within six months; JAPL No. 97 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the bail/suspension-of-sentence application; hearing of the appeal expedited, office directed to prepare the paper book within six months, and matter to be listed before appropriate Bench for final hearing. ¶20

Tinku Alias Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD JAIL APPEAL No. - 97 of 2024

¶2

Tinku Alias Raj Kumar

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shivam Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 93

¶8

HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

¶9

Order on Criminal Misc. Bail/Suspension of Sentence Application

¶10

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the conviction and sentence recorded vide judgment and order dated 02.09.2023 passed by Session Judge, District- Etah, in Session Trial No. 93 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 549 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Jalesar, District- Etah.

¶11

Heard Sri Shivam Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellantapplicant as well as the learned AGA for the State.

¶12

By means of the bail application, the appellant-applicant seeks suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

¶13

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant, husband of the deceased, is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It has been further submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial court is against the weight of evidence on record. The trial court has misread the evidence on record and convicted the appellant. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution despite the fact that the incident occurred during broad day light. The autopsy report is contrary to the prosecution

¶14

JAPL No. 97 of 2024

¶15

¶16

story.There is no criminal history of the appellant. It has been further submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and have not misused the liberty of bail. It is next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.09.2023. It is further submitted that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 10 years out of which appellant has served out more than 8 years in jail. Since there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future, the appellant may be released on bail. Besides the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has also tried to touch upon at length the circumstances which led to the false implication of accused - appellant.

¶17

On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the bail application. The appellant is husband of the deceased and the marriage of the appellant was solemnized 3 years ago of the alleged incident with due ceremonies and customary articles of dowry. Despite this, the appellant and his family members committed cruelty in regard to demand of dowry. On the fruitful day, in furtherance of common intention, they have killed the deceased. According to post-mortem report, cause of death was opined to be cardio respiratory failure due to hemorrhage stroke, caused by various injuries. There were many internal and external injuries on the body of the deceased. The sentence awarded by learned trial court is perfectly just and legal in the eyes of law and if the appellant is released on bail, he will abscond and there are every possibility of misusing the liberty of bail.

¶18

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned judgment.

¶19

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, after having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records and the evidence as collected during trial, I do not find it a fit case for bail.

¶20