# Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 13
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12668 of 2019
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satendra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-48093
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

G.A.

A.
Bail
-
The
applicant
planned
and
premeditated the murder of his wife in
connection with the demand of dowry. On
observing the cruel nature and instinct of the
applicant in case of his release on bail certainly
would adversely affect the witnesses, the Court
rejected the bail application of the applicant.
(Para 20)
Bail Application Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Satendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
13
place is also prima facie established,
moreover, no information of death was
given to the father and other family
members of the deceased which reflects the
criminal mens rea of the accused. He
further contended that the body was
recovered only on exhuming the dead body
from the place of burial with the permission
of District Magistrate on information of
witnesses during the investigation. These
all established that the death of deceased,
Pinky was a result of planned and
premeditated murder.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
brutality with wife a 22 years old lady and
mother of an one year's infant child in
causing her death, beating her cruelly by
the
present
accused
applicant
"her
husband" is not only grave in nature but
heinous also, and is evident of callous
greed of a heartless husband and self
centered irresponsible father of the infant
child. All the witnesses have not been
examined as offered by the prosecution in
charge sheet and still a material number of
witnesses remain to be examined. The cruel
nature and instinct of the applicant in case
of his release on bail certainly would
adversely affect the witnesses.

12. At this stage, the prosecution has
succeeded successfully to prima facie
establish its case against the present
accused-applicant who is the main accused
of the case.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
application for release of bail does not
deserves to be allowed, accordingly, the
same is hereby rejected.
----------
(2022)02ILR A13
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12668 of
2019

Satendra Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sunil Kumar Singh, Mohd. Afgan Khan,
Prashant Singh Atal, Rama Pati Shukla,
Saroj Kumar Shukla, Satya Bhushan Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A.
Bail
-
The
applicant
planned
and
premeditated the murder of his wife in
connection with the demand of dowry. On
observing the cruel nature and instinct of the
applicant in case of his release on bail certainly
would adversely affect the witnesses, the Court
rejected the bail application of the applicant.
(Para 20)
Bail Application Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi & anr.
2001 4 SCC 280

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar
Srivastav, J.)

1. The case is called out through
video conferencing.

2. Learned counsel for the bailapplicant, Sri Rama Pati Shukla, Advocate
and learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri
Anurag Singh Chauhan, Advocate are
connected through video conferencing in
virtual hearing of the case.
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The present bail-application is
moved on behalf of accused-applicantSatendra Kumar, involved in Case Crime
No.356 of 2019, under Sections 498-A,
304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station
Mishrikh, District Sitapur.

4. The occasion of present bailapplication has arisen on rejection of bailplea of the accused-applicant by learned
Sessions Judge, District Sitapur vide order
dated 04.12.2019.

5. Counter affidavit and rejoinder
affidavit have already been exchanged
between the contesting parties to the case,
as such, the case is ripe for hearing.

6. Reading over the first information
report, learned counsel for the bailapplicant submits, the prosecution case as
emerging from the first information report
is, the informant's sister was recurrently
being subjected to cruelty in connection
with demand of the dowry just after few
days from marriage by her in-laws namely
husband-Satendra
Kumar
(the
present
accused-applicant),
father-in-law,
Babu
Ram, mother-in-law i.e. wife of Babu Ram
and brother-in-law, Yatendra Kumar. They
used to abuse and beat her badly in
connection with demand of the dowry. On
the date of incident, all of them, after
beating badly, committed her death by
hanging.

7. Learned counsel for the bailapplicant in this connection argued, after
registering first information report, police
started investigation and recorded the
statements of complainant and witnesses
with which prosecution finds no support. It
is further submitted that the relations
between the husband i.e. the present
accused-applicant and the wife i.e. the
deceased were very sweet and the alleged
allegation is totally false. It is also
submitted that the deceased has herself
committed suicide.

8.

Apart
from
the
aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel for the bailapplicant seeks benefit of parity on the
basis of order of the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court dated 03.12.2019 granting bail to
the brother-in-law, namely, Yatendra Kumar
and prayed to grant bail to the present
accused-applicant, the husband of the
deceased also.

9. Protesting the bail plea as argued
by learned counsel for the bail-applicant,
learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that
the present accused-applicant is a person of
mischievous character. On the basis of
instructions received to him, the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State have
the statements of the complainant and other
witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C.
In
the
aforesaid
statement
(annexure no.5) in very clear unambiguous
words the complainant has stated her sister
deceased-Kalpana Kamle married with the
present accused-applicant and just after the
marriage the in-laws started demanding
dowry.
In
connection
therewith
the
deceased was being subjected to physical
and mental cruelty by them.

10. Learned A.G.A. further argued,
admittedly death of the deceased occurred
unnaturally in the matrimonial home within
a short span of five months from the date of
marriage and as there is allegations as to
the demand of dowry and subjecting the
deceased to the cruelty by the in-laws in
connection therewith soon before her death,
the bail-applicant cannot take plea of his
innocence on the ground that he himself
2 All. Satendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
15
has not done any cruelty against the
presumption of dowry death under Section
498-A of the I.P.C. with the aid of Section
113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
and consequently for dowry death under
Section 304-B of the I.P.C. The unnatural
death of wife in the matrimonial home
itself is implicit of cruelty done alongwith
wife though this is a matter of trial to see
whether
the
death
was
suicidal
or
homicidal.

11. Learned A.G.A. further submitted
that the circumstances are distinguishably
enough to dis-entitle the present accusedapplicant, from benefit of parity as well as
grant of bail at this stage.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the
bail applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

13. Obviously, the case in hand is of
dowry death as the sister of complainant,
namely, Kalpana Kamle (deceased), who
was married with the present accusedapplicant, Satendra Kumar on 09.03.2019
was died on 15/16.07.2019 unnaturally in
the matrimonial home. Just after the
marriage, the present accused-applicant,
Satendra Kumar (husband of the deceased)
started demanding pressingly additional
dowry with other in-laws in the form of
material domestic equipments like fridge,
colour L.E.D. T.V., expensive motor cycle
and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. When the
deceased
and
her
family
members
expressed their inability to fulfill their
demand of additional dowry, they used to
beat severally the deceased with lathi and
danda and warned her if the demand of
dowry is not fulfilled, they will done her to
death. On 15/16.07.2019, they brutally
beaten her in connection with their demand
of dowry with lathi, danda and hanged her
from the ceiling fan tied with saree in her
neck.

14. The Statement made to the police
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also discloses the
fact of demand of dowry and cruelty in
connection therewith. The cruelty in itself
soon before death of the deceased, Kalpana
Kamle is evident from the anti mortem
injuries reported in post mortem report,
which is referred hereinbelow:-

"A ligature mark 3.0 cm x 2.5
cm present on around the next, above
thyroid cartilage. Infront of neck passing
obliquely abraded & back alongwith line
of mandible, with the gap 06 cm. present
on lateral aspect of Rt. Side of neck,
situated in below chin, 06 cm. below left
ear and 0.5 cm. from Rt. Ear, on
dissection subcudmacus tainis under the
ligature mark white,k hard & gllasting.

(2) Abrassion 2 cm. x 1.0 cm.
present on midlib le on rt. Shoulder leg.
Destome is 4.5 cm.

(3) Contusion 2.5 cm. x 2.0 cm.
present on Mead in aspect of left arm 10
cm. below from lyt. Shoulder joint.

(4) Lacerated and on and aspect
of cythand (Midregeon) size is 1.0 cm. x
0.5 cm. x muscle deep.

(5) Contusion 4.5 cm. x 3.0 cm.
present on Rt. Knee joint."

15. The complaint of the complainant
with regard to causing death of the
deceased, Kalpana Kamle by her in-laws
beating her brutally from lathi and danda is
thus well established from the prima facie
evidence collected in the course of
investigation.

16. Another fact important for the
culpable mind and guilty conduct of the inlaws is evident from the inquest report done
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the inquest witnesses in which, none
of the member of in-laws family is
mentioned in the list of witnesses and even
their presence is not noted at the time of
inquest. They had fled from there house
after the incident.

17. The marriage was solemnized on
09.03.2019 and the deceased was done to
death in the night of 15/16.07.2019 in the
manner stated hereinabove i.e. death was
caused unnaturally within short span of
time from the date of marriage i.e. within
five months approximately. The deceased
was a young lady of 22 years in age and
was brutally murdered in connection with
demand of dowry as established by the
prima facie prosecution evidences. There is
no explanation in the affidavit in support of
the bail application as to the facts,
circumstances and reason of brutality found
on the person of the deceased as anti
mortem injuries by the present accusedapplicant. The applicant, who is husband of
the deceased, entrusted with physical,
mental and social security, comfort and
welfare of his wife, does not deserves to be
granted bail as the circumstances, character
and behavior of the accused are peculiar.

18. In Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT,
Delhi and another - (2001 4 SCC 280),
Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held some
parameters for grant of bail, which are
being quoted hereunder:-

"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail
has to be exercised on the basis of wellsettled principles having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an
arbitrary manner. While granting the
bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of
evidence in support thereof, the severity
of the punishment which conviction will
entail, the character, behaviour, means
and
standing
of
the
accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused,
reasonable
possibility
of
securing the presence of the accused at
the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger
interests of the public or State and
similar other considerations. It has also
to be kept in mind that for the purposes of
granting the bail the legislature has used
the
words
"reasonable
grounds
for
believing" instead of "the evidence"
which means the court dealing with the
grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself)
as to whether there is a genuine case
against
the
accused
and
that
the
prosecution will be able to produce prima
facie evidence in support of the charge. It
is not expected, at this stage, to have the
evidence establishing the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt."

19. The personal liberty of the
accused should always be weighed in the
light of brutality, gravity and seriousness of
offence. On the parameters discussed by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid
case of Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT,
Delhi and another (Supra), the accusedapplicant against whom, the prima facie
case of the prosecution is fully established
cannot claim personal liberty as an
innocent. Moreover, in the light of nature
and instict of the accused-applicant and his
family members, who dare even to kill a
young lady for their selfishness and their
self centered greed of dowry, they may
reasonably be apprehended to adversely
influence the witnesses against them so as
to ensure their acquittal from a heinous
charge. They are well aware with the
severity of punishment and gravity of their
offence, which may lead to their fleeing
from
the
process
of
the
Court.
2 All. Chandrakala Vs. State of U.P.
17

20. Keeping in view that the nature of
offence under Section 498-A coupled with
Section 304-B which bears a reverse
burden of proof upon the present accusedapplicant, as a husband, trusted by wife to
have responsibility of protecting her from
every risk of life and limb, allegedly
committed the cruelty with wife in
connection with demand of dowry and
done her to death in the matrimonial home,
his misdoings, as emerging from the
statements of witness annexed with the
counter affidavit are also sufficient together
to show, he is capable of tampering the
evidences and affect the witness adversely.

21. The trial court while deciding the
case on merit, need not to sway with the
observation made in this order and shall
rely upon the facts proved in due course of
examination during trial.

22. On the basis of above discussions,
I find no force in the submission of learned
counsel for the bail-applicant and the bailapplication is rejected at this stage.
----------
(2022)02ILR A17
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14632 of
2021

Chandrakala ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Surya Kant Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A. (Raveesh Chandra Mishra)

A. Bail - The Court on considering the facts of
the case granted bail to the applicant subject to
the conditions laid imposed on him. (Para 13)
Bail Application Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi & anr. 2001
4 SCC 280 (followed)

2. Sanjay Chandra Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation 2012 1 SCC 40 (Spectrum Scam
Case) (followed)

3. Dataram Singh Vs St.of U.P. & ors. (2018) 3
SCC 22 (followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar
Srivastav, J.)

1. Case is called out.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Surya Kant Singh, Advocate,
learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Raveesh
Chandra Mishra, Advocate through video
conferencing and perused the record.

3. The present bail application is
moved on behalf of the accused-applicant
involved in Case Crime No. 358 of 2021,
under Sections 498-A, 304 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-
Cornailganj, District- Gonda.

4. The prosecution case as emerged
from the First Information Report lodged
on the complaint of one ''Nandlal', brother
of the deceased, Sanju who died in the
incident in question on 29.09.2021. The
deceased wife of Vinod Kumar is stated to
have married 12 years ago from the date of
incident with the said Vinod Yadav s/o
Ramchandra Yadav r/o of village Nakhara,
Police
Station-
Colonelganj,
District-