Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVI KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravi Kumar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 9916 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7883 (20 December 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. 19

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.  9916 of 2005

Ravi Kumar .....Vs.....State of U.P.

...

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned A.G.A.

The applicant is involved in case crime No. 695 of 2004, for the offences under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Mathura, District Mathura.

It is alleged that in the year 1996 complainant's sister was married to Ravi Kumar ( applicant). Out of the wed lock two children  were born presently aged about 3 years and 1 ½ years respectively. According to FIR the husband of the victim was unemployed and also used to drink and beat his wife. On 9.12.2004 the complainant-brother was informed by the father of the applicant that he has killed his wife (complainant's sister) and fled away. A Report was lodged by the victim's brother at 8.40 a.m..

As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and supporting evidence, it is argued on behalf of the applicant that he has a licensee D.B.B.L. gun and works as night guard. He was living with his wife in joint family with his parents. His wife has been complaining against the father-in-law ( father of the applicant) who used to tease her taking advantage of the absence of the applicant. Ultimately he was compelled to shift in a rented accommodation to avoid any ugly situation. Obviously his father visited during night hours and tried to molest his wife and he killed her out of social fear. His father being a policeman also pressurized the witnesses to support his cock-bull story and gave information about the death of the victim to her brother ( complainant ).

In the counter-affidavit filed by the I.O. Sri Shiv Shankar Lal, no specific reply could come forward about the conduct of applicant's father. In the circumstances, the father of the applicant (father-in-law of the victim) was asked to file his affidavit before this Court. After affording several opportunities he filed his affidavit today, wherein he denied to have given any information to the victim's brother on telephone as mentioned in the FIR. He also refuted the allegation that his son is a drunker and used to fight with his wife. He averred that his son is a cook who prepares food during marriage ceremonies and he also has a licensee gun and performs guard duties in factories. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that there are only four witnesses whose statements have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including complainant and father of the applicant. The complainant is not an eye witness as the FIR is based on the information allegedly given by the father of the applicant. But the father of the applicant ( who is also a policeman) had denied it in his affidavit as mentioned here in above. He has also denied that his son has killed his wife. The evidence of the remaining two witnesses as given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is confined to the drinking habit of the applicant and about general quarreling with his wife. Both of them, however, also deposed that they were told by the father of the applicant that his son has killed his daughter-in-law.

The learned A.G.A. however, opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that in the post mortem report the cause of death is due to strangulation and the dead body was found in the house of the applicant.

Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant in respect of averment made about the conduct of the applicant's father           ( father-in-law of the victim), and taking into account the affidavit filed today by the father of the applicant and in the backdrop of the discussion made herein above against genuineness of the prosecution case and the supporting evidence, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

Dt:20.12.05

Zh


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.