# Ravi Kant Sharma v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 637 - **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-v-state-of-u-p-40504 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Cr.P.C. Section-439-Bail Applicationoffence under Section 498/323/506 IPCdemand of Rs.50,000/- and motor cycle pulsar and some ornaments- prosecution story fully corroborated by medical evidence,-7 injuries on neck.-cruelty committed by the applicant tried to commit the murder of injured by hanging- duly supported by the 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 AG.A., and after considering the medical examination report of the injured, it appears that the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence because the injured, the applicant being the 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 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 2 All] Ravi Kant Sharma V. State of U.P. 637 beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. 5. In view of what has been statedabove, this writ petition is allowed. The order of the revisional court dated 24.3.2003 is quashed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Petition Allowed. --------- APPELLAATE 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 ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Rajeev sisodia Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Dinesh kumar A.G.A. Cr.P.C. Section-439-Bail Applicationoffence under Section 498/323/506 IPCdemand of Rs.50,000/- and motor cycle pulsar and some ornaments- prosecution story fully corroborated by medical evidence,-7 injuries on neck.-cruelty committed by the applicant tried to commit the murder of injured by hanging- duly supported by the 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 AG.A., and after considering the medical examination report of the injured, it appears that the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence because the injured, the applicant being the 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 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 other co-accused persons with a view to fulfill 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 but they were not satisfied. The injured was subjected to cruelty continuously. The injured had written INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005 638 some letters to her father mentioning therein that she was subjected to cruelty to fulfill the demand of dowry. There after on 8.4.2005, when the applicant and other persons told that the demand of dowry will not be fulfilled, 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. there after 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 co-accused came to the house of the first informant by bringing her 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 firsts by the applicant 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 lodged by the police. There after, the F.I.R. was lodged in pursuance of the order passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Nagina, District Bijnor under Sec. 158(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 a 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 fulfill 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 AG.A., and after considering the medical examination report of the injured, it appears that the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence because the injured, the applicant being the 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 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. Application Rejected. --------- 2 All] Allah Taala V. Maya Devi and others 639 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2005 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J. Civil Misc. Application No.192419 of 2002 On behalf of U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs Lucknow...Applicant. In Second Appeal No. 1149 of 2002 Allah Taala ...Appellant Versus Maya Devi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S. Asraf Ali Sri Shahid Masood Sri Rajesh Kumar Sri M.A. Qadeer Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Shamim Ahmad Sri Faujdar Rai Sri M.P. Sinha Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh Sri Sanjay Rai Sri S.A. Ali U.P. Waqf Act No. 43 of 1995-Section-90 (3)-Maintainability-of Applicationconcurrent finding recorded by the Court's below-confirmed by High Court in Second Appeal-review application also rejected-findings to the effect that the property in dispute is not Waqf propertycan not be reopened on mere assertions of made by the applicant-heldapplication not maintainable. Held: Para 3 In the case at hand, this question was raised at the first instance and an issue was framed and decided in negative, which has also been confirmed by this Court. In the circumstances, I come to the conclusion that this Application is not maintainable and is accordingly rejected. Case law discussed: 1995 ACJ (2) 1159 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow. He has filed an application under Section 90 (3) of U.P. Waqfs Act No.43 of 1995 in second appeal no.1149 of 2002, Allah Taala Vs. Smt. Maya Devi and others. Sri Faujdar Rai, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents. 2. Both the counsels have also furnished their written submissions. This application has been challenged on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents raising preliminary objection that the application under Section 90 (3) of U.P. Waqfs Act No.43 of 1995 (hereinafter referred as the Act) is not maintainable. The suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents was decreed on 24.11.1992 in Original Suit No. 101 of 1973 Musamat Bela Devi Vs. Allah Taala. This judgment was confirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, court no.1 Ballia in civil appeal no.6 of 1993 and the Second Appeal filed against the judgment and decree 26.8.2002 has also been dismissed by this Court on 3.10.2002. A review application was also filed on 11.11.2002, which was rejected as not maintainable at the instance of a different counsels other than one, who had filed the Second Appeal. The review application was rejected on 12.7.2004. Sri Faujdar Rai, Advocate, has emphatically argued raising this preliminary objection that since the suit has been decreed up till the stage of this High Court, this application at the behest of the Waqfs Board is not maintainable.