Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANTOSH KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Santosh Kumar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 17956 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15793 (11 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. 17956 of 2006

Santosh Kumar..Vs....State of U.P.

.......

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Santosh Kumar with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 233 of 2006, under Sections 304-B I.P.C., P.S. Baniyather, District Moradabad.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Ram Chandra Singh at P.S. Baniyather, Moradabad on 22.5.2006 at 8.50 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 21.5.2006 at about 10.00 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged only against the applicant alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Vineeta, the daughter of the first informant was solemnized with the applicant about 2 years prior the alleged occurrence. The first informant was having 4 daughters. The applicant was pressurizing the deceased to dispose of the land of her share for purchasing a Sonalica tractor and a plot in Chandausi from that money, but it was refused by the first informant. The deceased was beaten by the applicant. At that time she was having the pregnancy of 5 months. The applicant has used the kicks and fists blows. Consequently, she received injuries on her stomach and died at about 10.00 p.m. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received one contusion 10 cm x 6 cm on the lateral side of left abdomen, due to the injury received by the deceased the spleen was lacerated and about one litre fresh blood was present in the abdominal cavity.  

 Heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anil Raghav learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P. and Sri Raj Kumar Khan and Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the complainant.

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

(i)According to the F.I.R. also there was no demand of dowry. There was a dispute between the first informant and the applicant in respect of disposal of the share of the deceased for which the first informant was not agreed, therefore, it shall not be treated as dowry death.

(ii)The deceased was not beaten by the applicant , but accidentally she stepped down from stairs and fallen on the cot. The upper part of the cot hit her stomach and she became unconscious. She was taken to the nearest Doctor  by the applicant, but her case was referred  to Sai Hospital for better treatment. Unfortunately, in the way to the Sai Hospital she died.

(iii)The F.I.R. has been lodged by the first informant due to some ulterior motive. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A and the learned counsel for the complainant submit that the sister of the deceased has also married to the real cousin of the applicant. During investigation the prosecution story has been fully supported by the witnesses. The deceased has died within 2 years of her marriageThe death of the deceased was unnatural and specific role of causing the injuries is assigned to the applicant, therefore, he may not be released on bail

      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and considering the seriousness of the offence, specific role assigned to the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

         Accordingly, the bail application is rejected

Dated: 11.9.2006

Rcv

                                                                   


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.