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


Vimlesh Kumar Mishra v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15717 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4033 (4 October 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).


Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.  15717  of 2005

Vimlesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

This is the second bail application filed on behalf of Vimlesh Kumar Mishra with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2004 under Sections 498-A, 304 B IPC and Section ¾ D. P. Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District Allahabad. First bail application was dismissed in default by order dated 11.7.2005.

I have heard Sri P.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Prosecution case is that Smt. Geeta was married with accused applicant in the year 1997 and Gauna had taken place after some time. Dowry was given but it could not satisfy the accused and his family members and demand for Colour Television, Freeze, Washing Machine etc. was being made but when these items could not be given she was burnt on 14.5.2004. The intimation was given by the brother of the complainant Rajnath Dubey on phone as he was in Bombay at that time.

The brother of the complainant Chabiley Dubey after getting the information about the death of Smt. Geta along with Smt. Vidyawati, Malti Devi, Jai Prakash Dubey, Amarnath Dubey, Munna Dubey and others came to her in-laws house and found that she was lying dead. She was burnt either by poring kerosene oil or petrol. The complainant was suspected that her daughter was beaten and strangulated. The report was lodged on 17.5.2005 against the applicant, his brother Kamlesh Kumar, wife of Kamlesh Kumar and Doodh Nath. In this case the information was given by village Chaukidar Ram Das at Police Station Phool Pur on 14.5.2004 that Smt. Geeta wife of Vimlesh had burn herself none else was present in the house and therefore he informed the police. On the basis of this information, the inquest was prepared on 15.5.2004 and at that time Ram Chandra Dubey uncle of deceased, Jai Prakash, Amar Nath and others of the village of the deceased were present.

Post mortem report was conducted on 16.5.2004 and according to it there were superficial to deep burn all over the body and no other mark of injuries was found by the Doctor. The death was due to shock as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. Post mortem report also shows that carbon particles were present in Trachea and Hyoid bone was intact. Carbon particles were also present in both the lungs.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the accused has been wrongly implicated in this case and that Smt. Geeta committed suicide. He has further contended that in the F.I.R., the facts were not correctly stated including the period of marriage and the gauna of the deceased.

He has also contended that Doodh Nath was wrongly implicated in this case. He has also argued that in the F.I.R., it has been mentioned that Smt. Geeta was beaten and neck was pressed but the post mortem report does not support this contention. He has further contended that the spot inspection report shows that the door of the room was removed from the wall and it shows that she committed suicide by closing herself in the room. The spot inspection was done in presence of the complainant and other witnesses on 17.5.2005. He has further  contended that at the time of inquest report the uncle and other family members of the deceased were present and they were satisfied that the deceased had committed suicide and that is why no report was lodged on that day. He has further contended that inspite of opportunity given to the complainant and the State no counter affidavit has been filed and therefore the contention as made in the affidavit become un-rebutted.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have contended that the accused has committed the murder of his wife as dowry was not given and that father in-law after coming to know about the incident came to Allahabad and then lodged a report.

Learned counsel for the complainant also contended that evidence is being recorded in this case and two witnesses have already been examined.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without prejudice to the merits of the case, accused is entitled to bail.

Let the accused named above involved in above case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Dated: 4.10.2005



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.