Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 13 May, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1240 of 2019
Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Bipin Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State on bail application. Perused the record.
By the judgement and order dated 05.2.2019 passed by learned XVth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, the accused-appellant has been convicted in S.T. No. 73 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 481 of 2010, P.S. Etmatuddula, District Agra and sentenced for the offence under section 498-A IPC, for three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-, for the offence under section 325/34 IPC, for five years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence under section 307/34 IPC, for seven years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and for the offence under section 4 D.P. Act, for two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-.
Submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The fact was that the injured (wife-deceased) fell down from the staircase because of attack by monkey and due to which she sustained injuries. Further submission is that the accused-appellant has wrongly been convicted for the offence under section 307 IPC as there is no such injury which could attract section 307 IPC. Further submission is that accused-appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that it was a case of cruelty and harassment on account of non fulfilment of dowry demand and as per medical report, the injured wife sustained as many as ten injuries. Two of them were around the head. They have also submitted that injured was admitted to the district hospital, Agra where she was hospitalized from 29.8.2010 to 10.9.2010 and as such, she was under treatment by way of hospitalization. They have also submitted that as per judgement of learned trial court, evidence was given from the side of accused-appellant with regard to alleged falling down from the staircase on account of attack by monkey. If, it was a case, she remained with in-laws after sustaining the injuries for three days and no paper with regard to treatment of wife has been submitted from the side of accused-appellant.
Further submission is that section 498-A has been enacted with the purpose to provide safety to the wife in the matrimonial home against cruelty and harassment on account of non fulfilment of dowry demand.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in view of injuries sustained by wife and the statement of injured herself even before the learned trial court, the accused-appellant being husband does not deserve any sympathy and his bail application should be rejected.
Accordingly, bail application of accused-appellant Manoj Kumar Sharma in S.T. No. 73 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 481 of 2010, under sections 498-A, 307/34, 325/34 IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Etmatuddula, District Agra, is rejected.
Order Date :- 13.5.2019
RCT/-
