Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA @ RAJA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anil Kumar Shukla @ Raja v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18859 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4972 (27 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court NO. 49

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18859 of 2005

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

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

Counter affidavit has been filed by learned A.G.A. be taken on record. Accused applicant Anil Kumar Shukla @ Raja son of Ajai Kumar Shukla has prayed for release on bail in case crime No. 217 of 2004 under Sections 498-A, 304 B IPC and Section ¾ D. P. Act, P.S. Chaubepur,District Kanpur Nagar.

Prosecution case is that Smt. Soni sister of the complainant Sunil Kumar was married with the accused applicant on 9.5.2004. Dowry was given but Smt. Soni was harassed for not bringing Rs. 50,000/- in cash, Freeze and Golden Chain. The complainant had agreed to give a motorcycle and had also looked the same but could not make payment and had to make the payments in instalments and the payment was made on 31.8.2004. The accused left Smt. Soni at her Maika on 18.9.2004 with the instruction to come to Ramdham Crossing in Bithoor on 20.9.2004. On 20.9.2004 Smt. Soni along with  her younger sister Suman went to Ramdham crossing and there the accused met them. Thereafter Km. Suman left for her school. Zameel son of Babu Khan of the complainant's village saw the accused and Smt. Soni  near the Zuriha Talab. At about 9.00 a.m. Ashish Kumar son of Uma Shanker, Munshi Lal son of Chota who were going to Bithoor in connection with their work saw that Smt. Soni was lying in unconscious condition near the pond by the side of the road. They recognised her and took her to the complainant's house. There the complainant called Dr. Ramu Savita and he after examining her declared her dead. According to the complainant accused gave some poisonous substance as the dowry demand could not be fulfilled. A report was lodged on 23.9.2004 prior to that the complainant had given information at P.S. Chaubeypur on 20.9.2004. It was entered in General Diary at Rapat NO. 201 at 3.00 p.m. He further contended that it is a clear case of dowry death and the poison was given by the accused when he had called the deceased at Ramdham Crossing.

Post mortem was conducted on 21.9.2004 and the cause of death could not be ascertained and Viscera was preserved. During examination poison was found in the Viscera part.

Contention of learned counsel for the accused applicant is that accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that the death of Smt. Soni took place in her Maika and she was killed by her father and other family members and that the accused also filed a complaint in the Court under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. in this connection on 22.9.2004 and thereafter on the direction of the Court case was registered on 10.12.2004. According to the complaint made by the accused he had left his wife in her Maika on 18.9.2004 who had told him to come back within 2-4 days after. She had also stated to bring Rs. 5,000/- from her father. When his wife did not return, he went to his sasural on 22.9.2004 and came to know in the village that his wife was killed by her father and brothers on 20.9.2004 and on account of fear he came back. He was not informed by family members of his wife and they also performed her funeral rites.

Learned counsel for the accused applicant has further contended that there is no evidence to suggest that the accused has committed the murder of his wife. In the affidavit annexed with the bail application in para -13, it has been contended that in a pre planned manner a demand of Rs. One lakh was made from the applicant and he was also threatened that if the demand would not be fulfilled a report would be lodged against him and his family members. But in the affidavit, it has not been mentioned as to when the demand was made and who made this demand from the side of the complainant. It is also important to mention  here that no such allegation has been made in the complaint given by the accused on 22.9.2004 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Had there been any such demand the accused must have mentioned this fact in the report. To the contrary his complaint shows that he did not meet the father or brother of his wife. On account of fear he came back when he was told by the villagers about the death of his wife.

Learned A.G.A. has contended that in a pre planned manner the accused had asked his wife to come to Ramdham Crossing on 20.9.2004 and she went there with her younger sister and the accused met her as has been stated by Km. Suman in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and thereafter Km. Suman left for her school. He has further contended that Zameel  and Raju son of the complainant had also seen the accused talking with his wife. They have made statement    to that affect before the Investigating Officer.

Learned A.G.A. has further referred to the statements of Ashish Kumar and Munsilal who saw Smt. Soni lying in unconscious state near the pond. They had taken her to her house where she was declared dead by the doctor. Viscera report has confirmed that poison was given to the deceased. He has further contended that it is a clear case of dowry death and the poison was given by the accused when he had called the deceased at Ramdham Crossing.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, accused is not entitled to bail and his application is liable to be rejected.

Bail application of the accused is hereby rejected.

Dated: 27.10.2005

RKS/18859/05


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.