Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MITHILESH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mithilesh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15605 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15124 (1 September 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. 15605 of 2006

Mithilesh  Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Mithilesh  with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 282 of 2005 under sections  498-A,304 B and 201 I.P.C. P.S. Phoolpur  district Azamgarh.

The prosecution story in brief is that the  F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Ram Chet Yadav, grand father of the deceased, on 26.3.2006  at 4.05 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 25.3.2006 at about 4.00 p.m. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and five other co-accused persons alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Smt.Suman, grand daughter of the first informant, was solemnized with the co-accused Akhilesh on 25.5.2002. Thereafter the demand of a motorcycle was raised by the in-laws of the deceased and to fulfill the demand of dowry the deceased was subjected to cruelty. A request was made by the first informant not to commit cruelty to the deceased but on 25.3.2006 at about 4.00 p.m. the deceased has been killed by the applicant and other co-accused persons by putting her on fire. Its information was given to the first informant.  At the time of the alleged incident the deceased was having the pregnancy of six months. After receiving the information, the first informant came to the house of the applicant but he did not find the family member there and the house was locked. The first informant tried to search out the dead body of the deceased but the same could not be traced out.

Heard Sri V.L.Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that :

1.That the applicant is jeth of the deceased. He was having no concern with the family affairs of the deceased and her husband. He was living separately. He was having no concern with the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty.

2.That on the day of the alleged occurrence the applicant was not present at his house. He had gone to Azamgarh for the business purposes.

3.That the deceased has committed suicide inside the room bolted  from inside by  putting on herself on fire.

4.That the door was broken open by the villagers and the dead body was taken out. Its proper information was given to the first informant who came to the place of occurrence and with his consent the dead body was disposed of in the presence of the first informant and his other family members but on the next day due to some ulterior motive the present F.I.R. has been lodged.

In reply to the above contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant submits:

I.That the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased. He is also living in the same house. The certificate issued by the Village Pradhan is not genuine. The deceased has been murdered within four years of her marriage.

II.That there was a demand of dowry and to fulfill the demand of dowry the deceased was subjected to cruelty.

III.That admittedly the deceased died due to burn injuries but the dead body of the deceased has been cremated. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant, and considering the certificate issued by the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Khan Jahan Pur that the applicant was living separately from his father, mother and brother for the last 8 years and the Ration Card filed by the applicant as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of this bail application, showing that the applicant was living separately, the case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of the other co-accused, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail.

Let the applicant Mithilesh involved in Case Crime No. 282 of 2005 under sections 498-A,304 B and 201 I.P.C. P.S. Phoolpur  district Azamgarh  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.

Dt. 1.9.2006

NA


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.