# Malik Ram @ Dinesh v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 459
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-26
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 5798 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/malik-ram-dinesh-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-48800
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
G.A.

A. Death whether suicidal or homicidal-
One oblique ligature mark all around the neck
no other injury was found on the person of the
deceased, is identical to the definition of
hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence. Since the
definition
of
hanging
given
in
Modi's
Jurisprudence and the post-mortem report of
the deceased are identical, it appears a case of
committing suicide by hanging and not the
murder.

B. As general role has been assigned to all the
accused perons including the applicant who is
the husband of the deceased, therefore the case
of the applicant is ot on the worse footing than
that of the other co-accused who have been
enlarged on bail, therefore applicant is also
entitle for bail.

Bail Application allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases relied upon:-

## Text

8 All. Malik Ram @ Dinesh Vs. State of U.P.
459

"1. Thus, pending reference also
reliefs were granted by this Court in
exercise of powers u/s 438 of Cr.P.c. As
stated above, the Division Bench has also
granted such relief. The decision of Dr.
Augustine Francis Pinto and another
(supra) and Sandeep Lohariya (supra) was
considered by this Court, as stated above.
The co-accused who is apprehending arrest
in this case, is granted protection by
Aurangabad Bench of this Court on 16th
February 2021. The applicant has to make
arrangements to seek appropriate reliefs in
other State. Since the applicant would be
ultimately approaching the Court having
jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to
make any observation on the merits of the
case. In the light of factual matrix of the
case protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C
can be granted to the applicant for
temporary period of three weeks.

2. Hence, I pass following order:

(i) In the event of arrest of applicant in
connection with C.R. No. 49 of 2021
registered at Special Cell, New Delhi, the
applicant be released on bail on executing
P.R Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with
one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) This protection is granted for a
period of three weeks from today to enable
the applicant to approach the competent
court for seeking appropriate relief ;

(iii) Anticipatory Bail Application is
disposed of."

16. In view of the law enunciated in
the above referred cases, there is no fetter
on the part of the High Court in granting a
transit anticipatory bail to enable the
applicants to approach the Courts including
High Courts where the offence is alleged to
have been committed and the case is
registered. There is no doubt that the right
to liberty is enshrined in Part-I1I of the
Constitution of India and such rights cannot
be impinged except by following procedure
established by law. This court finds that the
commercial transaction ensued between the
applicants and the complainant and there
are criminal cases lodged by the parties
against each other. It is a fit case where the
applicants should get the privilege of transit
pre-arrest bail in the light of the order
passed in the case of Nikita Jacob (supra).

17. Hence, this courts directs that in
the event of arrest of applicants in
connection with the F.I.R. No. 444 of 2022,
Police Station- Mansarovar, Jaipur City
(South) dated 10.05.2022, under Sections-
504, 506, 384, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, they
shall be released on transit bail on
executing personal Bond of Rs. 50,000/-
with two sureties of the like amount;

(i) This protection is granted for a
period of four weeks from the date of this
order, to enable the applicant to approach
the
competent
Court
for
seeking
appropriate relief.

18. The application is allowed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 459
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 5798 of 2021

Malik Ram @ Dinesh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ashish Raman Mishra

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
G.A.

A. Death whether suicidal or homicidal-
One oblique ligature mark all around the neck
no other injury was found on the person of the
deceased, is identical to the definition of
hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence. Since the
definition
of
hanging
given
in
Modi's
Jurisprudence and the post-mortem report of
the deceased are identical, it appears a case of
committing suicide by hanging and not the
murder.

B. As general role has been assigned to all the
accused perons including the applicant who is
the husband of the deceased, therefore the case
of the applicant is ot on the worse footing than
that of the other co-accused who have been
enlarged on bail, therefore applicant is also
entitle for bail.

Bail Application allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases relied upon:-

1. Refer to Modi's Jurisprudence.

2. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., reported
in (2018) 3 SCC 22
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ashish Raman Mishra,
the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Shiv Ram Tiwari, the learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.

2. The applicant, Malik Ram @
Dinesh, has moved the present bail
application seeking bail in Case Crime No.
385 of 2020 (Session Trial No. 527 of
2021), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C.
and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Rupaidiha, District Bahraich.

3. As per the version of F.I.R. dated
28.09.2020 the complainant alleges that
marriage of her daughter, Arti Devi was
solemnized with the applicant two years
back, but the in-laws of her daughter were
not satisfied with the dowry given at the
time of marriage and they used to make
demand of motorcycle in the form of
additional dowry regularly, and on account
of non fulfillment of the said demand, they
used to meet cruelty and torture to the
daughter of complainant. On 19.09.2020
the mother-in-law of the daughter of
complainant informed him that his daughter
has hanged herself.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant has falsely been
implicated in the case. No such incident as
alleged by the prosecution took place.
Neither any further demand was made by
the in-laws of the deceased including the
applicant, nor any complaint was ever
made after the marriage or prior to the date
of incident. It has further been argued that
case of the applicant is that the deceased
had committed suicide as she was a short
tamper lady and always pressurizing the
applicant to live separately from his
parents, which demand was used to refuse
by the applicant, on account of which the
deceased remained under mental pressure,
and ultimately on the date of incident she
committed suicide by hanging herself.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that on incorrect facts only
with intention to implicate the applicant
and his other family members the F.I.R.
was lodged by the informant against the
applicant and his two other family
members by making general allegations of
demand of additional dowry, even same
allegation has been made in the statement
of the complainant recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. There is no incriminating
evidence against the applicant for demand
of dowry and consequently, harassment or
torture of the deceased.
8 All. Malik Ram @ Dinesh Vs. State of U.P.
461

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that as per the postmortem
report of the deceased cause of death is
asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It
has also been submitted that except one
oblique ligature mark of size 28 c.m. x 2.5
c.m. all around the neck no other injury
was found on the person of the deceased. In
support of his argument learned counsel for
the applicant placed reliance upon the
extract of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence,
wherein definition of hanging has been
described and as per the postmortem report
of the deceased it is identical to the
definition of hanging given in Modi's
Jurisprudence. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that since the definition
of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence
and the postmortem report of the deceased
are identical, it appears a case of
committing suicide by hanging and not the
murder.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that on similar allegations
the mother and father of the applicant have
already been granted bail by a coordinate
Bench of this Court vide orders dated
10.02.2021 and 08.04.2021 passed in Bail
Nos. 1748 and 2073, both of the year 2021,
copies of which have been annexed as
Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support
of the bail application. As general role has
been assigned to all the accused persons
including the applicant who is the husband
of the deceased, therefore, the case of
applicant is not on the worse footing than
that of the other co-accused who have been
enlarged on bail, therefore, the applicant
may also be enlarged on bail by this Court
sympathetically. .

8. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the applicant have also been
placed
forth before
the
Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
applicant that he is ready to cooperate with
the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. It has also been pointed
out that the accused is not having any
criminal history, which fact has been stated
in para-33 of the affidavit filed in support
of the bail application. The applicant is in
jail since 01.10.2020 and that in the wake
of heavy pendency of cases in the Court,
there is no blinking chances of any early
conclusion of trial as till date not a single
witness has been examined.

9. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the
prayer for bail of applicant submitted that
the death of the deceased had occurred
within two years of her marriage and
applicant is the husband of the deceased,
therefore, he is not entitled to be released
on bail, but he has not disputed that the
father and mother of the applicant have
been enlarged on bail.

10. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the Bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence, considering the fact that there
is no specific allegation against the
applicant; except only one ligature mark
present all around the neck of the deceased
no other injury found on the person of the
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased; cause of death is asphyxia due to
ante mortem hanging; father and mother of
the applicant having similar allegation have
already been granted bail by a coordinate
Bench of this Court; and considering the
fact that applicant has already undergone a
substantial period of incarceration; as well
as considering the larger mandate of the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs.
State of UP and another, reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view
that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

11. The prayer for bail is granted. The
application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant, Malik Ram @
Dinesh involved in Case Crime No. 385 of
2020 (Session Trial No. 527 of 2021),
under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Rupaidiha, District Bahraich,
be enlarged on bail on his executing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any
attempt to tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally
appear on each and every date fixed in the
court below and his personal presence shall
not be exempted unless the court itself
deems it fit to do so in the interest of
justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in
the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in
any criminal activity or commission of any
crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the
liberty of bail and in order to secure his
presence proclamation under Section 82
Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to
appear before the court on the date fixed in
such proclamation, then, the trial court
shall initiate proceedings against him, in
accordance with law, under Section 174-A
of the Indian Penal Code.

(6) The applicant shall remain present,
in person, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court default of this
condition is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of his bail and proceed against him
in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.

13. It may be observed that in the
event of any breach of the aforesaid
conditions, the court below shall be at
liberty to proceed for the cancellation of
applicant's bail.

14. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merit of
the case.
----------
8 All. Fayanath Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
463
(2022) 8 ILRA 463
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 7404 of 2022

Fayanath Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ramakar Shukla, Ashish Kumar, Ravindra Gupta

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

A. Long Detention and Delay in Trial- If the
accused perso is in jail for substantially long
period and there is no possibility to conclude the
trial in near future, the bail application may be
considered.

Bail Application allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases relied upon:-

1. U.O.I. Vs K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 Supreme
court 712

2. Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs The Director, CBI,
[Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of
SLP (Crl) No. 3610 of 2020)]

3. Saudan Singh Vs St. of U.P., [Criminal Appeal
No. 308 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.
4633 of 2021)]

4. Brijesh Kumar @ Ramu Vs St. of U.P.,
[Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2022 (SC)]

5. Vipul Vs St. of U.P., [SLP (Crl) No. 3114 of 2022]

6. Suleman Vs St. of U.P., [Criminal Appeal No.
491 of 2022 (SC)]

7. Kamal Vs St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526

8. Takht Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2001 (10) SCC 463
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. This case is taken up in the revised
call.

2. Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned
counsel for the applicant as well as Sri
Anirudha Singh, and Sri Shiv Ram Singh,
learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused
the record.

3. The applicant, Fayanath Yadav,
has moved this fourth bail application
seeking bail in Case Crime 381/2011, under
Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Kurebhar, District Sultanpur.

4. This fourth bail application has
been placed before this regular Bench in
the light of Hon'ble The Chief Justice's
order dated 13.11.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the
applicant has almost completed more than
eleven years in incarceration, but till date
the trial of this case has not been
concluded.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged
on 23.05.2011 and the applicant is named
in the F.I.R. along with other co-accused
persons and during investigation the
complicity of four co-accused persons was
not found, as such they were exonerated by
the Investigating Officer. He further
submits that there is no overt act assigned
to the accused applicant and the allegation
that the deceased was beaten in-front of