Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AKHAND PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Akhand Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 23758 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19339 (16 November 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. 23758 of 2006

Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

Heard Sri J.S. Sengar and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.  for the State of U.P. and Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by  Sri Sailendra Singh learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is alleged that the marriage was solemnized with the deceased on 9.5.2004, thereafter, the demand of dowry was raised by the applicant and other co-accused persons and to fulfill  the same demand, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. Thereafter the poison was administered to her by her in laws consequently, she died. Such allegation made against the applicant and other co-accused  is false and frivolous, the deceased was never subjected to cruelty  to fulfill the demand of dowry and no poison has been administered to her by the applicant and other co-accused persons because according to the Post Mortem Examination Report  no ante mortem injury was found on her person, the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. The viscera report has been received in which no poison was found, the death was natural, it was not unnatural, its proper information was given to the first informant and others and she was admitted in District Hospital Sant Kabit Nagar for treatment from where she was referred to Gorakhpur but she died in the way. The applicant is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offence.

In reply to the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant that according to the  postmortem Examination report the mastisk, main brain, left and right lung, pleura,  gall bladder, spleen and kidneys were congested which shows that the deceased died due to poisoning. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the viscera report dated 16.12.2005 and the applicant being the husband is the main accused. There is allegation in respect of demand of dowry and to fulfill the demand of dowry the deceased was subjected to cruelty. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.

From the perusal of the record, it appears that the allegation in respect of administering the poison to the deceased is made on the basis of suspicion after assessing the circumstances of the case but there is no eye witness account to support this allegation. It can be substantiated by the viscera report, which is in negative, in such a situation, at this stage, no adverse inference  can be  drawn against the viscera report on the basis of  the post mortem examination reports, in which  some organs of body were found congested. It is an issue which can only be considered and decided  by the trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced theein.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and viscera report dated 16.12.2005 in which no poison was found, submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant  the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Let the applicant Akhand Pratap Singh  involved in case crime no. 1526 of 2005  under Sections 498-A,304B  I.P.C.,  and ¾ D.P. Act P.S. Khalilabad District Basti   (Sant Kabir Nagar) 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.

Dated. 16.11.2006

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.