Allahabad High Court
Jitendra & 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 2 August, 2016
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3718 of 2016
Appellant :- Jitendra & 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record.
The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 23.7.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Farrukhabad in S.T. No.273 of 2013 (State Vs. Jitendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.26 of 2013, under sections 498A, 323, 307 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Amritpur, District Farrukhabad, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- in offence under section 498A I.P.C., in default the appellants have to undergo for 4 months additional imprisonment, for six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- in offence under section 323 I.P.C. and in default the appellants have to undergo for one month additional imprisonment, for 8 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- in offence under section 307 I.P.C. and in default appellants have to undergo for six months additional imprisonment, for one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in offence under section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and in default the appellants have to undergo for three months additional imprisonment.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant no.1 is the husband while appellants nos. 2 and 3 are father in law and mother in law of the victim. The appellants are innocent as they neither demanded any dowry nor they ever tortured the victim. It is further contended that in the F.I.R. specific role of pulling the victim with rope has been assigned to the appellant nos. 1 and 2, who are husband and father in law while appellant no.3 is said to have holding the victim with her hands and also dragged her. The medical report of the victim does not corroborate with the prosecution case.The appellants were on bail during trial and never misused the liberty of bail. The appeal is not likely to be heard in near future due to heavy dockets of cases.
Per contra learned A.G.a. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants contending that the appellants are named in the F.I.R. and their participation in the crime cannot be doubted as individual role has been assigned to them who killed the victim in a very atrocious manner as her parents could not fulfil their demand of additional dowry. In case they are allowed to be released on bail, they will misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that appellant no.3 Smt. Pushpa involved in the aforesaid case be enlarged on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial judge concerned in the aforesaid sessions trial for the above offence. As soon as bail bond and surety bonds are furnished, photocopy of the same shall be transmitted to this Court forthwith by court concerned, to be kept on the record of this appeal.
The fine is not stayed.
However, bail of appellant nos. 1 and 2 shall be considered on the receipt of lower court record.
On receipt of the lower court record the office is directed to prepare the paper book.
Order Date :- 2.8.2016
RU
