Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRAMOD KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pramod Kumar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 11215 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10631 (13 June 2006)

 

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. 47

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11215 of 2006

Pramod Kumar              Vs.                  State of U.P.

Hon'ble (Mrs.) Saroj Bala,J.

This is an  application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Pramod Kumar   indicted in case crime No. C-5   of 2006  under sections 498-A, 304-B  I.P.C. and 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act  P.S. Lohata  District Varanasi.

Heard Shri K.S. Tewari , learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.  and have perused the record.

According to the First Information Report registered on 10.3.2006 in compliance of an order passed on application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.c. the informant's daughter (victim) was married to the applicant in the year 2001. It is alleged that the victim was subjected to torture on account of demand of dowry and was ultimately done to death on 8.1.2006. According to the postmortem certificate  death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of drowning with evidence of  injury over head.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the marriage had taken place eight years before the occurrence. The learned counsel urged that the victim accidentally fell in the well  and information was given to the police  by the informant  and father in-law of the deceased on 9.1.2006. The learned counsel argued that informant and his brother signed the inquest memo as witnesses of inquest on the dead body. The learned counsel pointed out that in the inquest memo cause of death has been shown as head injury sustained due to having  fallen  in the well. The learned counsel submitted that the incident had taken place on 8.1.2006 but the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.c. was moved on 16.1.2006. The contention of the learned counsel was that prior to the making of application under section 156(3) the informant gave information to the police about the accidental death of his daughter by having a  fall in the well. The learned counsel pointed out that there are no allegations of demand of dowry in the  information given by him on 9.1.2006. The learned counsel urged that in the First Information Report the details of items demanded have not been given. According to the learned counsel  vague allegations of demand of  dowry have been made. The learned counsel referring to the voter list of the year 1999  submitted that name of the victim appears at serial no. 449 which means that marriage had taken place before the year 1999.

The learned A.G.A. argued that specific allegations of demand of dowry have been made against the applicant. The learned counsel submitted that the victim  died in unnatural circumstances within the period of less than seven years  from the date of her marriage with applicant.  

I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties.

The complainant had made an application to the police station Lohata District Varanasi on 9.1.2006 stating therein that marriage had taken place about eight years ago and death took place by having fallen in the well. According to the postmortem certificate the cause of death is asphyxia due to drowning with evidence of injury on head. The details of dowry articles demanded have not been mentioned in the First Information Report. In view of these facts and circumstances, I consider it to be a fit case for bail.  

Let the applicant Pramod Kumar   indicted in case crime No. C-5   of 2006  under sections 498-A, 304-B  I.P.C. and 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act  P.S. Lohata  District Varanasi, be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Aks/11215/06

13.6.2006

 


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.