# Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan - **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 794 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2009-08-25 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No.1241 of 2009 - **Bench:** C.K. Prasad, C.J. A.P. Sahi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sangathan-and-others-v-ram-ratan-41464 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439Bail-offence under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC read with 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Actdeceased talking on mobile on boundary leu roof-fell down sustained injury on particular part of body-at once-bough in hospital by applicant husband-referred to G.A. Medical Institute for better treatment in presence of her parents and other relatives inquest report prepared in their presence-post mortem report also supports the case of applicantfourth day F.I.R. lodged to black male the applicant-confinement of applicant for more than one year-held- entitled for bail without expressing any opinion about merit of case. Held: Para 11 I have carefully gone through the entire case diary and other material on record. It is not disputed that the deceased in injured condition was carried to Sharda Hospital Pilibhit, where her treatment was made and thereafter, for better treatment, she was carried by the applicant himself to Gangasheel Advanced Medical Research Institute Bareilly, where she was admitted, but could not survive and died during treatment on 10.05.2008. It is also not disputed that information was given to the complainant, who came with his family members, who were present at the time of inquest proceedings on 10.05.2008 and complainant, his brother Devendra Kumar and daughter Priyanka had signed inquest report (Annexure-6). In the 'opinion of panch witnesses' (ray panchan) endorsed at page 3 of the inquest report, it is mentioned that the deceased has died due to falling down from roof. Therefore, having regard to all these facts and keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant, but without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, the applicant, who is confined in jail for more than a year, may be released on bail. Case law discussed: [2007 (57) ACC 481]. ## Text 794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE C.K. PRASAD, C.J. THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J. Special Appeal No.1241 of 2009 Vipin Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.K. Pandey Sri K.S. Yadav Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India Art. 226-Dismissal Order-passed on ground of giving false declaration in application-contention regarding acquittal in Criminal Casesdismissal Order bad-held-wrong declaration itself entails cancellation of appointment. Held: Para 5 We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Pandey. The fact of the matter is that he had made a wrong declaration. The law in question is well settled that wrong declaration made, entails cancellation of the appointment. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 437. Case law discussed: (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 437, 2006 (4) ESC 2625 (All), 2006 (5) ALJ 781. (Delivered by Hon'ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.) 1. Writ petitioner - appellant, aggrieved by an order dated 09.07.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33672 of 2009, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 2. Writ petitioner - appellant was recruited as a Constable. As per requirement, the appellant had to furnish information of his involvement in criminal cases and accordingly he gave a declaration that he is not involved in any criminal case. On verification, it was found that he was involved in two criminal cases and accordingly by order dated 7th of August, 2007 his appointment was cancelled. 3. He assailed the aforesaid order in the writ application, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 4. Mr. A.K. Pandey appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant having been acquitted in those criminal cases, his appointment ought not to have been cancelled. 5. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Pandey. The fact of the matter is that he had made a wrong declaration. The law in question is well settled that wrong declaration made, entails cancellation of the appointment. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 437. 3 All] Vipin Kumar V. State of U.P. and others 795 6. This Court had also the occasion to consider this question in the cases of Arvind Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2006 (4) ESC 2625 (All) and Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2006 (5) ALJ 781 wherein the same view has been followed. 7. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is in conformity with law. We do not find any merit in the Appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31956 of 2008 Brijesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Dr. Arun Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439Bail-offence under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC read with 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Actdeceased talking on mobile on boundary leu roof-fell down sustained injury on particular part of body-at once-bough in hospital by applicant husband-referred to G.A. Medical Institute for better treatment in presence of her parents and other relatives inquest report prepared in their presence-post mortem report also supports the case of applicantfourth day F.I.R. lodged to black male the applicant-confinement of applicant for more than one year-held- entitled for bail without expressing any opinion about merit of case. Held: Para 11 I have carefully gone through the entire case diary and other material on record. It is not disputed that the deceased in injured condition was carried to Sharda Hospital Pilibhit, where her treatment was made and thereafter, for better treatment, she was carried by the applicant himself to Gangasheel Advanced Medical Research Institute Bareilly, where she was admitted, but could not survive and died during treatment on 10.05.2008. It is also not disputed that information was given to the complainant, who came with his family members, who were present at the time of inquest proceedings on 10.05.2008 and complainant, his brother Devendra Kumar and daughter Priyanka had signed inquest report (Annexure-6). In the 'opinion of panch witnesses' (ray panchan) endorsed at page 3 of the inquest report, it is mentioned that the deceased has died due to falling down from roof. Therefore, having regard to all these facts and keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant, but without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, the applicant, who is confined in jail for more than a year, may be released on bail. Case law discussed: [2007 (57) ACC 481]. (Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.) 1. Prayer for bail in this bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C.') has been made on behalf of the applicant Brijesh Kumar s/o Prem Kumar, who is the husband of deceased Smt. Neelu Gangwar, who died within a period of 7 years of her marriage due to sustaining injuries.