Allowed

Sanjay Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Apr 2023BA1/401/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nainital allowed bail to an applicant charged with dowry death under Section 304-B IPC and cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. The court noted family disputes and lack of continuous residence at the alleged crime scene as factors for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount.

Sanjay Semwal Vs State of Uttarakhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 401 of 2023

¶2

Sanjay Semwal ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶3

Present:-

¶4

Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the applicant.

¶5

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. with Ms. Shivali Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.

¶6

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶7

Applicant Sanjay Semwal is in judicial custody in FIR No.31 of 2022, under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Ghansali, District- Tehri Garhwal. He has sought his release on bail.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶9

According to the FIR, the applicant and the deceased married on 31.01.2016/01.02.2016. They were blessed with two children. The FIR records that initially the deceased was harassed for dowry. On 28.08.2022, the informant, who happened to be the father of the deceased, was told that the deceased had committed suicide. The FIR records that, in fact, on 26.08.2022, the

¶10

¶11

deceased had telephoned to the informant saying that he would kill her, saying that the deceased takes quarrel with his parents.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant did not commit any offence; he was working in Mussoorie; the deceased was staying with his parents; there are vague allegations in the FIR; the parents of the applicant have already been granted bail; if any amount was given to the deceased in the year 2018 by the brother of the deceased, it has no concern with the applicant; he never demanded any money.

¶13

Learned State Counsel would submit that, in fact, in the year 2018, Rs. 65,000/- were transferred in the account of the deceased by her brother and the account details confirms it; the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage

¶14

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. The discussion is being made with a caveat that any observation made in this order should not have any bearing at trial.

¶15

The FIR, itself, records that the applicant was staying at some other place and the deceased was staying

¶16

¶17

with her in-laws. After more than 6 years, the deceased committed suicide. The FIR also records that on 26.08.2022, the applicant had telephoned her saying that he would kill her because she takes quarrels with his parents. The applicant, as stated, has not been staying in his home. He was working outside the station. Is it a case of some family quarrels? This and many more questions would, perhaps, find adjudication during trial.

¶18

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

9. The bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant 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.

¶21

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 03.04.2023

¶22

Ravi Bisht

Sanjay Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Similar cases

X Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Govt. of U.K. Dehradun

X Vs State of Uttarakhand

Royer Nicole Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vanmala Agrawal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Tanveer Beg Vs District Magistrate Haridwar

Amarnath Vs State of Uttarakhand