Doodh Nath & 3 Ors. vs State of U.P.

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. on the point of admission of criminal appeal and perused the judgment and order dated 05.12.2009.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants is pressing the prayer for bail of appellants No. 1, 3 and 4, namely, Doodh Nath, Amar Nath and Onkar Nath. He does not want to press the prayer of bail of accused appellant No.2 Bardi Nath.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Court No.5, Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2006 (Crime No. 59 of 2005): State Vs Bajrangi Prasad and others, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section � Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge held the accused guilty under Sections 304B, 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act consequently, he has convicted and sentenced each of accused to undergo different terms of imprisonment and to pay fine with default stipulation. The maximum sentence awarded by the trial court is of seven years under Section 304B I.P.C.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record for hearing on the prayer of bail of appellant No. 2 Badri Nath.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. on the prayer of bail.

The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the accused appellants were not charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer. They were summoned by the trial court under Section 319 I.P.C. As per allegation of the prosecution, the accused appellants were demanding motorcycle from the deceased. When their demand was not fulfilled, they used to harass and torture her and lastly they caused her death.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that accused appellant no. 1 is the grand fatherinlaw of the deceased. He is aged about 80 years. The accused appellants No. 3 & 4 are uncleinlaws of the deceased. These accused can hardly be said to be beneficiary of the dowry. They were living separate from the family of the husband of the deceased. The complainant Deen Dayal Tiwari in his cross examination has stated that accused never made any dowry demand from the deceased. In this way, the involvement of the accused appellants Doodh Nath, Amar Nath and Onkar Nath has not been established in commission of the alleged offence. They were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. Therefore, they deserve to be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, accused appellants Doodh Nath, Amar Nath and Onkar Nath may be released on bail.

Let accusedappellants 1, 3 and 4 (Doodh Nath, Amar Nath and Onkar Nath) be released on bail in aforesaid Sessions Trial number during pendency of the appeal on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

The realization of fine awarded by the trial court shall remain stayed.

The prayer of bail of accused appellant No.2 Badri Nath will be considered at later stage.

List after the trial courts record is received.