Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dinesh Kashyap v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3235 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 2691 (6 February 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.19                                                                                                                                                                              

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3235 of 2005

Dinesh Kashyap  . . . . . . . .  . . . . .   Vs.   . . . . .  . . .   . . . .State of U.P.


Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

The applicant has applied for  bail  in Case  Crime No. 312 of 2004 ,  under sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C  and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act  Police Station   Sadar Bazar  District  Shahjahanpur.

The prosecution  case starts with a F.I.R.  lodged by Sri Sudhir Kumar  Kashyap at  Police Station Sadar Bazar  District Shahjahanpur on 1.7.2004 at 6.35 P.M.  It was  stated therein that  the marriage of his sister  Smt. Nanhi Devi  had taken place with the accused  Dinesh Kashyap about three months ago and  after marriage  Dinesh Kashyap   was demanding   a colour  T.V. and  Rs.50000/- as dowry  and  his sister  had told him  that if his demands are not satisfied , she will be  murdered .  On 30.6.04 when  the informant had gone to the house of   the accused,  his sister   weepingly   told him  that   because of  not giving  colour T.V. and Rs.50000/-  in cash she  was being threatened. The informant  had requested   the accused  Dinesh Kashyap  to wait for   1- 2 months and assured  that  he would  give colour T.V. and Rs.50000/-  in cash . His another  brother in law    Munnu was also  present there at that time. His sister  Nanhi Devi wanted to  go  with  the informant  but the accused Dinesh  Kashyap  did not permit  her to  go with him ,  and on 1.7.04 he committed  her murder  and hanged  her   dead body.

On the basis of  above report  the police  registered a  case  against the accused . The dead body was sent  for post postmortem which was performed  on 2.7.04 at 3 P.M. According to the  post postmortem report  two ante mortem  injuries were found  on the body of the deceased as under:

1.A contusion  4 cm. X 3 cm. Front of left leg 13 cm.   Below left knee.

2.A ligature  mark 28 cm. X 1.5 cm.  Horizontal continuous below  the  Thyroid ; Base of Grove. and Raddish Sub cut tissue under the neck echymosed.

The Doctor was of the view that  cause of death was  Asphyxia as  a result of  ante mortem strangulation.  

The applicant has alleged that  he  is innocent and he has  falsely been implicated.  Learned counsel for the applicant submits that  the deceased  was not his legally wedded wife .  Earlier she was   married with  Uma  Shanker and  they were  separated  by a Panchayat . Thereafter an agreement  took place  between them   on 17.3.2004 and on the basis of that agreement  Nanhi Devi  had started to  reside with him. He has further  alleged that  even   after separation     from her former husband Uma Shanker used to  visit  his house , and  Nanhi Devi  was in  a dilemma  as to with whom  she should reside , and so she committed suicide .

Learned A.G.A.  opposed the bail application and  he  submitted in reply that  according to   the agreement  dated 17.3.2004   the deceased was residing  with the accused applicant  as his wife  and there is no force in the contention of the  applicant that  since  a legal divorce  had not taken place between Nanhi Devi and Uma Shankar , the provisions of  section 304B I.P.C.  are not attracted  . He further  contended that  it is not a case of  suicide  but homicide  as is apparent  from the  ante mortem injury as well as  the ligature mark  which were


ntinuously found  around the neck and  this uninterrupted ligature mark  falsifies  the allegation of suicide.  He submitted that  the applicant does not deserve bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case ,  I am of the   view that  the applicant does not deserve bail. The application is  rejected.

However,  since it appears  from perusal of the record that the case is pending  for trial  as S.T.No.1348/04 and the applicant has been in Jail  for more than  one and half year ,  the trial court shall try  to conclude  the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order  and if   trial is not concluded  within the aforesaid period  for no  fault of  the accused , the applicant would be at liberty to move  a fresh  bail application .




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.