Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMANANDAN versus STATE OF U.P

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramanandan v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 8142 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 1978 (17 August 2005)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J

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

The accused applicant Ramanandan who is the husband of deceased Manju has prayed for release on bail in case Crime No. 670 of 2003 under Sections 498 A/304B, 201 IPC,  P.S. Bilsanda, District Pilibhit.

Prosecution case is that Smt Manju was married to the accused 3-4 years prior to the incident and demand of Rs. 20,000/- was made which could not be made by the complainant, who is mother of the deceased. According to complainant she came to know on 11.10.2003 that her daughter had died and thereafter when she reached her matrimonial house she came to know that the dead body had been disposed of by the accused person without waiting for her. Complainant went to lodge the report but it was not written; then she gave application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter the case was registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that Smt. Manju died a natural death as she had returned from her Maika one day prior to the incident and her condition deteriorated and she was taken to the Doctor and he advised   for taking her to Pilibhit.

Learned A.G.A. contended that the accused did not wait for the complainant and disposed of the dead body of Smt. Manju and it shows malafide of the accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the statement of three witnesses have been recorded. He has filed the copy of the statement of Smt. Hardevi, complainant which shows that there was no demand of dowry but only a part of statement has been filed and it is not relevant.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the manner in which the accused disposed of the dead body without waiting for the complainant  and her family members, accused is not entitled to bail and his application is liable to be rejected.

Bail application of the accused is hereby rejected. However learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case and proceed under Section 309 Cr.P.C. It is expected that the accused shall cooperate in his speedy trial. Learned Trial Court shall make every effort to conclude the trial within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. In case the Trial is not concluded within the prescribed time then the concerned Court shall submit a report explaining the reasons for delay.

Copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court within a week.

Dated : 17.8.2005

RKS/8142/


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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