# Ravi Kant Sharma (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1208
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11822 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-kant-sharma-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-40768
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure Section-439Bail Application-offence-under Section
498-A/323/506
I.P.C.-demand
of
Rs.50,000/- and for Motor cycle Pulser
and some ornaments-prosecution story
fully corroborated by medical evidence-7
injuries on neck, cruelty committed by
the applicant-tried commit the murder of
injured by hanging-duly supported by
presence
of
injuries-considering
the
gravity of offence applicant deserves no
sympathy-held-not
entitled
to
be
released on bail.
Held: Para 6

In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the submissions made by the
counsel
for
the
applicant,
learned
counsel for the complainant and the
learned A.G.A., and after considering the
medical
examination
report
of
the
injured, it appears that athe prosecution
story is fully corroborated by the medical
evidence because the injured, the wife of
the
applicant
was
badly
beaten
consequently, she received 7 injuries,
the applicant being the husband is under
legal/social obligation to maintain her
wife in cool and calm atmosphere but in
the present case it is not happened, and
the cruelty has been committed by the
applicant and others, even they tried to
commit the murder of the injured by way
of hanging which is supported by the
presence of the injuries on the neck, the
gravity of the offence is too much,
therefore, the applicant does not deserve
for any sympathy and is not entitled to
be released on bail.

## Text

1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
6. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11822
of 2005

Ravi Kant Sharma ...Applicant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajeev Sisodia

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Dinesh Kumar
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure Section-439Bail Application-offence-under Section
498-A/323/506
I.P.C.-demand
of
Rs.50,000/- and for Motor cycle Pulser
and some ornaments-prosecution story
fully corroborated by medical evidence-7
injuries on neck, cruelty committed by
the applicant-tried commit the murder of
injured by hanging-duly supported by
presence
of
injuries-considering
the
gravity of offence applicant deserves no
sympathy-held-not
entitled
to
be
released on bail.
Held: Para 6

In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the submissions made by the
counsel
for
the
applicant,
learned
counsel for the complainant and the
learned A.G.A., and after considering the
medical
examination
report
of
the
injured, it appears that athe prosecution
story is fully corroborated by the medical
evidence because the injured, the wife of
the
applicant
was
badly
beaten
consequently, she received 7 injuries,
the applicant being the husband is under
legal/social obligation to maintain her
wife in cool and calm atmosphere but in
the present case it is not happened, and
the cruelty has been committed by the
applicant and others, even they tried to
commit the murder of the injured by way
of hanging which is supported by the
presence of the injuries on the neck, the
gravity of the offence is too much,
therefore, the applicant does not deserve
for any sympathy and is not entitled to
be released on bail.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh
Kumar, counsel for the complainant and
the learned A.G.A.

2. The applicant has applied for bail
in Case Crime No.245-C of 2005, P.S.
Kotwali Dehat District Bijnor.

3. From the perusal of the record, it
reveals that the applicant is the husband
of the injured Smt. Pallavi, whose
marriage was solemnized with her on
25.11.2003. The injured was subjected to
cruelty by the applicant and other coaccused persons with a view of fulfil the
demand of Pulser Motor cycle and
Rs.50,000/-and there was a demand of
some ornament of gold for the Jethani of
the injured. The injured conveyed all
these things to her father. The first
informant and other persons tried to
persuade the in-laws of the injured by
they were not satisfied. The injured was
subjected to cruelty continuously. The
injured had written some letters to her
father mentioning therein that she was
subjected to cruelty to fulfil the demand
of dowry. Thereafter on 8.4.2005, when
the applicant and other persons told that
the demand of dowry will not be fulfilled,
4 All] Ravi Kant Sharma V. State of U.P.
1209
so the injured was detained in a room,
where she was beaten by the Danda,
Kicks and fists by the applicant and other
co-accused persons at about 12.30 P.M.
Thereafter, the injured was caught hold by
the co-accused Shambhu Dayal, Luxmi
Kant and Krishna Kant to commit the
murder and the applicant and co-accused
Renu tied her neck and hanged to-but at
the persuasion of the injured, she was not
murdered. The applicant and other coaccused came to the house of the first
informant by bringing her in injured
condition, after seeing her condition, all
shocked. Again the aforesaid demand of
dowry was made with the threatening that
in case the demand of dowry is not
fulfilled, the injured will be killed. Then
the first informant made hue and cry. He
was also beaten by kicks and fists by the
applicants and others. Some independent
witnesses namely Daya Swaroop, Sanjai
Kumar and Virendra Singh came at the
place of occurrence, then the applicant
and other co-accused persons ran away
from there. The injured was taken to the
hospital and medical aid was provided to
her but F.I.R. was not lodged by the
Police. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged
in pursuance of the order passed by the
learned A.C.J.M., Nagina, District Bijnor
under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The medical
examination report shows that the injured
has received 7 injuries, in which injury
Nos. 1 & 2 were on the neck.

4. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. is
delayed and there is no demand of dowry.
The alleged occurrence had taken place in
sudden quarrel because the injured was a
misbehaved woman.

5. It is opposed by the learned
A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the
complainant by submitting that the
injured is a poor woman and she was
subjected to cruelty with a view to fulfil
the demand of dowry and she was
subjected to cruelty with a view to fulfil
the demand of dowry and she was badly
beaten by the applicant and other coaccused persons. The prosecution story is
fully
corroborated
by
the
medical
examination report. The F.I.R. is delayed
because the police has registered the
F.I.R. in pursuance of the order passed
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., so there is
no delay on the part of the first informant.

6. In view of the facts and
circumstances
of
the
case,
the
submissions made by the counsel for the
applicant,
learned
counsel
for
the
complainant and the learned A.G.A., and
after considering the medical examination
report of the injured, it appears that athe
prosecution story is fully corroborated by
the medical evidence because the injured,
the wife of the applicant was badly beaten
consequently, she received 7 injuries, the
applicant being the husband is under
legal/social obligation to maintain her
wife in cool and calm atmosphere but in
the present case it is not happened, and
the cruelty has been committed by the
applicant and others, even they tried to
commit the murder of the injured by way
of hanging which is supported by the
presence of the injuries on the neck, the
gravity of the offence is too much,
therefore, the applicant does not deserve
for any sympathy and is not entitled to be
released on bail.

7. Accordingly this bail application
is rejected at this stage.
---------
1210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 8397 of 2005

Ram Vriksha

...Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Director of Consolidation
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Swaraj Prakash
S.C.

(A) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
1956-Section
11
read
with
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holding
Act
1962Section 9-A Sale Deed executed by grand
mother-minor's
father
and
mother
already died-at the age of 24 years.
Notification under section 4 of C.W. Act
made in the year 1972-minor, attain
majority in the year 1968-6years period
of limitation would expire in 1974- of
adverse possession not available.

Held:Para 16 and 17

On the basis of evidence brought on
record in the form of voter list of 1973
and Parivar register the Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
held
that
the
petitioner attained majority either in
1968 or in 1972. The said finding of the
Settlement Officer Consolidation is based
on the voter list wherein the age of the
petitioner is recorded as 24 years and
the parivar register wherein this date of
birth is 25.2.1954. Thus in any case even
if the starting point of limitation is taken
to be 1968 when the petitioner attained
majority, six years period would expire
in 1974. Admittedly the village was
notified for consolidation operation on
20.5.1972. After commencement of the
consolidation operation no suit under
Section 209 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act can be
filed, the jurisdiction being barred and
hence non-filing of suit would confirm no
rights on the person who was in
possession an the date the consolidation
proceedings started if the limitation for a
suit under Section 209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act has not till them run out. In other
words if before the expiry of the
prescribed
period
of
limitation
consolidation
intervenes
then
the
limitation
prescribe
by
section
209
stands arrested. The view taken by me
finds support from a division bench
judgment of our court in the case of Smt.
K.
Devi
Vs.
Joint
Director
of
Consolidation U.P. & Ors. 1973 ALJ 395.

In view of the above legal position the
period of six years from the time
petitioner attained majority having not
expired before the commencement of
the
Consolidation
proceedings,
the
respondent no.4 would not acquire any
title or right by adverse possession. The
remand order made by Deputy Director
of Consolidation cannot be said to be
justified in any manner in the aforesaid
facts and circumstances.
Case law discussed:
2001(45) ALR 820

(B) Constitution of India Art-226-writ
petition against remand order-generally
the Court I refused to interfere-but
where
the
interference
become
necessary-Court not to refused can
technical
ground-finding
of
facts
recorded by the S.O.C. without setting a
side the same-where the sale transaction
made by defects guardian found voidremand order on illegal presumption of
viodable document by the D.D.C.-cannot
be held justified -such order deserves to
be interfered.

Held: Para 18

If the court normally does not interfere
with the remand order, it does not mean