Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38935 of 2020 Applicant :- Sachin Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Mullick,A.C.Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyan Chandra Yadav
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 547 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Inchouli, District Meerut, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and that he has not committed any offence. It was stated that the first information report was lodged making false and baseless allegations of dowry demand and harassment. Learned counsel submitted that deceased has committed suicide at her parental home and thus, there is nothing to show that applicant has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It was further submitted that after registration of the case, the family members of first informant have filed affidavits denying the story of dowry demand and torture of deceased. Learned counsel submitted that in fact deceased was under depression and she was under treatment of one Dr. Mayank Jain in Meerut. Learned counsel submitted that there is no dying declaration of deceased and that in view of affidavits of family members of the deceased, no case is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.02.2020, having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that marriage of deceased has taken place only six and a half months prior to the incident. It has been submitted that there are allegations in the first information report that after marriage as deceased was being harassed by applicant and his family members, thus, the father of deceased has brought her to his home but even after that the applicant and his family members continued to make demand of dowry by making telephonic calls and that one week prior to the incident, the applicant has visited the home of informant and asked the deceased that she has to come to matrimonial home only with a car otherwise he would not see her face. It was submitted that after one week of said demand, deceased committed suicide. It was submitted that applicant is husband of deceased and there is direct connection between dowry demand, harassment and death of deceased.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant Sachin is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 A. Tripathi