Case Details

SHAILENDRA KUMAR RAI @ CHANCHAL RAI versus STATE OF U.P

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement

Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Chanchal Rai v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 1618 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 19741 (21 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. 19

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1618 of 2004

Shailendra Kumar Rai alias Chanchal Rai.....Vs.....State of U.P.

...

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the material on record.

It was argued on behalf of the applicant that no specific date and month has been mentioned in the F.I.R. in respect of marriage which admittedly took place in 1996 and as such almost 7 years have already elapsed. Attention of the Court was drawn towards the fact that the applicant (brother-in-law) himself got married on 30.5.2003. The incident is said to have been taken place on 24.8.2003, two days where after F.I.R. was lodged on 26.8.2005. It was argued that there was no occasion for the brother-in-law to have participated in the alleged burning of the lady because he himself was recently married. It is further contended that in fact due to anguish and frustration, the lady herself committed suicide because she did not like the idea of give her ornaments in the marriage ceremony of her brother-in-law (Dewar). It was also pointed out that burn injuries were only upto the extent of 30% and the husband applicant himself took her wife to the hospital. In the dying declaration that she named the applicant i.e. brother-in-law (Dewar) because her ornaments were given to the wife of aforesaid brother-in-law. Similarly she named her husband also in the dying declaration because she was already angey with him, as mentioned in one of the letters.

The bail application was opposed on the ground that the incident took place within 7 years of the marriage. Although exact month and date are not mentioned in the F.I.R., but it is a matter of substantive evidence and soon before the death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of additional dowry as mentioned in the F.I.R. Therefore, presumption under Section 113-B has to be drawn against the accused. Emphasis was also laid on the dying declaration wherein the name of the applicant has been mentioned.

In view of the facts and circumstances and submission made before this Court , without prejudice to the merits of the case I do not find sufficient ground for granting bail at this stage. It is, therefore, rejected.

Dt. 21.11.2005

Rkb.

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

Case Details

Case Law Search

Judgement

Copyright

Advertisement