High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bijendra Tiwari v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 12688 of 2005  RD-AH 2606 (9 September 2005)
Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 12688 of 2005
Bijendra Tiwari ...Vs....... State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
Heard Sri P.N. Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apul Misra learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri S.K. Pandey learned counsel for the complainant.
This application is filed by the applicant Bijendra Tiwari with a prayer that the applicant may be released on bail in case Crime no. 446 of 2005, under Sections 498-A and 308 I.P.C. P.S. Prem Nagar, District Bareilly
From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Ram Kumar Sharma at P.S. Prem Nagar on 17.5.2005 at 10.05 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 16.4.2005 at 2 p.m., with the allegation that the marriage of Smt Ruchi Tiwari the daughter of the first informant was solemnized with the applicant about three years prior the alleged occurrence. The daughter of the first informant was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and other co-accused persons, to fulfill the demand of dowry because they were demanding Rs. 2 lac. On the date of occurrence the applicant, co-accused Smt Savitri Devi, Umesh and Smt Vijay Laxmi had badly beaten Smt Ruchi Tiwari. Consequently, she received injuries. This information was given to the control room by some neighbour, on that information the police came at the house of the applicant and has taken out to Smt Ruchi Tiwari from the house. Thereafter a detailed information was given to the police by the first informant. The injured Smt Ruchi Tiwari was medically examined on 16.4.2005 at 1.45 p.m. She has received three injuries. Injury no. 1 was on the both hands, wrist , forearms, elbow and shoulder. The injury no. 2 was multiple lacerated wound 8 in number over the scalp with fresh bleeding. The injury no. 3 has shown the fracture on third metacarpal with the fracture on base of second metacarpal. The injures were fresh and grievous in nature.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation of demand of dowry is false and concocted because the applicant has purchased a plot in the name of Smt Ruchi Tiwari under Avas Vikas Scheme. The said amount was deposited in installments by the bank draft and there is joint account of Smt Ruchi Tiwari, Brijendra Tiwari and Sri S.P. Tiwari in UCO Bank, Bareilly. It is further contended that the applicant had bear the expenses of the treatment. It is further contended that the injuries were not dangerous to life. It is further contended that with the wedlock of the applicant and Smt Ruchi Tiwari a son was born, thereafter Smt Ruchi Tiwari became more irritable and temperamental. On the date of alleged occurrence she exceeded all the limits of decency and on every petty matter over the looking after of the child she started hurling abuses on the applicant and also for other family members. It was protested by the applicant and the applicant persuaded her to calm down, but in a fit of rage she slapped the applicant and abused the applicant and his family and hurled filthy abuses to the applicant and his mother, this resulted in a sudden loss of self control. In these circumstances the applicant caused injury.
It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the marriage of the applicant has been solemnized with the injured Smt Ruchi Tiwari about three years back. During the investigation the evidence has been collected by the I.O. to show that there was a demand of dowry and to fulfill the same she subjected to the cruelty. On the date of occurrence the injuries were caused on the head and other parts of the body of Smt Ruchi Tiwari. The injuries were grievous in nature. It has been admitted by the applicant that he had caused the injury, but he had shown a different manner of the occurrence, so the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that it is not a fit case for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.