Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Ramautar @ Godilal vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 November, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4461 of 2018 Appellant :- Ramautar @ Godilal Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Vindeshwari Prasad,Gyan Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned judgement and order of the trial court.
The present appeal has been filed by the applicant against the judgement and order dated 30.7.2018 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/ FTC no. 1, Etawa in S.T. No. 141 of 2017 (State vs. Ramautar @ Godilal) arising out of Case Crime No. 583 of 2016, u/s 498A, 304 IPC, P.S. Jaswantnagar, District Etawa.
Submission of counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is the husband of the deceased; the marriage had taken place more than eight years back. It is argued that in the dying declaration the deceased had stated that on 18.12.2016 at about 9.00 pm her husband in the state of intoxication of liquor started fighting with her and then he poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze by matchstick. It is argued that the deceased died after 16 days of the incident and the present case will not travel beyond the purview of section 304(B) IPC. He further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution version and PW-1 first informant has stated that at his instance the deceased had made dying declaration for implicating the appellant, therefore, the appellant, who is in jail since 2.4.2017 may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is dying declaration of the deceased and there is no earthly reason to falsely implicate the appellant, therefore, the appellant, who is main accused, may not be enlarged on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court, I do not find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Office is directed to prepare paper book within two months. List in the week commencing 11.3.2019 for final hearing.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Dhirendra/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Ramautar @ Godilal vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 November, 2018
Judges
  • Rajul Bhargava
Advocates
  • Vindeshwari Prasad Gyan Chandra Gupta