Single judge allowed bail application of Sunil Kumar, father-in-law of deceased, in matrimonial offences causing death and cruelty, holding it a fit case for bail after six months detention with no chance of evidence tampering.
Allowed bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| BA1 No.1853 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ravi Shanker Kandpal, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Dy.A.G. for the State. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the private respondent. Accused–Sunil Kumar has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.95/2021 U/s 304-B and 498-A IPC and U/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. It is argued that the accused has been falsely implicated; he is languishing in jail since 16.05.2021; there is no allegation against him regarding demand of dowry; the accused is the father-in-law of the deceased; he has no concern with the crime; statement of Chhidun Singh and additional statement of the informant were recorded during the investigation but they did not support the prosecution story; he is ready to furnish the sureties and may be granted bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the private respondent opposed for bail. As per the FIR, the occurrence took place on 15.05.2021. On the very same day, the informant Balbir Singh submitted information with Police Station Jaspur. Accordingly, the impugned FIR was lodged against four persons including the present applicant. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Sunil Kumar and Rahul Kumar U/s 306 apart from the other sections. No charge sheet was submitted against Laxmi Devi and Ruby. As per the statement of the informant Balbir Singh as well as Chhidun Singh, it is clear that on 14.05.2021, the informant, his son and son-in-law assembledinthemarriage ceremony of Pooja.They |
| also assembled at the house of present accused |
|---|
| where they took wine. As per the additional statement of informant Balbir Singh, there was no cordial relation between husband (Rahul) and the deceased (Anju). There is no allegation levelled against the present accused, who is father-in-law of the deceased. The accused has already served about six months’ in jail. It will take time to conclude the trial. There is no chance of tampering with the evidence since charge sheet has already been submitted. Accordingly, without making any comment on the merits, it is a fit case for bail at this stage. The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Needless to say that observations made in the present case will not affect the hearing of other cases. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. |
| (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 11.11.2021 Sukhbant |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether accused Sunil Kumar, father-in-law of deceased, is eligible for release on bail in offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.
Whether the accused has served sufficient jail time to make it a fit case for bail.
Whether bail can be granted when the charge sheet has already been submitted and likelihood of tampering with evidence is low.
Sunil Kumar
State
private respondent
R.C. Khulbe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
