# Ujjawal Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 940
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-10-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19287 of 2007
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ujjawal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-41197
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

High Court Rules-Chapter XVIII Rule 18
(4)(b)-Bail application without disclosing
the date of surrender or arrest-held-not
maintainable-direction
issued
accordingly for strict compliance-Bail
application rejected only on this ground.

Held: Para 6

The date of the applicant's arrest/
surrender in the court concerned has not
been mentioned in the bail application
which is mandatory requirement as
provided
by
the
High
Court
rules,
Allahabad under Chapter XVIII Rule 18
sub rule (4)(b). The period of detention
is also one of the grounds to consider the
bail
of
the
accused,
if
applicant's
arrest/surrender is not mentioned in the
bail application, the bail application shall
not be entertained. It is also one of the
ground to reject the bail application.
3 All] Ujjawal Singh V. State of U.P.
941

## Text

940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007

6. Considering the facts and
circumstances
of
the
case
and
submissions made by learned counsel for
the applicants, learned A.G.A., and from
the perusal of the record it appears that it
is a matrimonial dispute between the
applicant No.1 and his wife Smt. Nidhi
Thakor,
they
have
entered
into
a
compromise
and
decided
to
live
separately to lead their life, according to
their free will and consent. The O.P. No.2
and his sister Smt. Nidhi Thakor do not
want to proceed further against the
applicants and they are having no
objection in quashing the proceedings of
this case against the applicants. In terms
of compromise a draft of Rs.7 Lacs has
been given to Smt. Nidhi Thakor the wife
of applicant No. 1. In such circumstances
the fate of proceedings pending in the
Court of the learned C.J.M. Concerned is
pre decided i.e. the acquittal of the
accused because the witness shall not
support the prosecution story on account
of compromise. It shall be abuse of the
process of the court if the proceedings are
not quashed. In view of the decision of
Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and
others Vs. State of Haryana and
another AIR 2003 SC 1386, in such
matrimonial case if the parties have
entered
into
a
compromise
the
proceedings may be quashed.

7. In view of above discussion the
proceedings of case No.18236 of 2006
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in
the court of learned C.J.M., Allahabad
arising out charge sheet dated 27.11.2006
of Case Crime No. 231 of 2006 P.S. Civil
lines, District Allahabad are hereby
quashed.

Accordingly,
this
application
is
allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19287
of 2007

Ujjwal Singh

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri. Kamlesh Shukla
Sri. Mangala Prasad Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri. Manish Chandra Tiwari
Sri. Sanjay Singh
AGA

High Court Rules-Chapter XVIII Rule 18
(4)(b)-Bail application without disclosing
the date of surrender or arrest-held-not
maintainable-direction
issued
accordingly for strict compliance-Bail
application rejected only on this ground.

Held: Para 6

The date of the applicant's arrest/
surrender in the court concerned has not
been mentioned in the bail application
which is mandatory requirement as
provided
by
the
High
Court
rules,
Allahabad under Chapter XVIII Rule 18
sub rule (4)(b). The period of detention
is also one of the grounds to consider the
bail
of
the
accused,
if
applicant's
arrest/surrender is not mentioned in the
bail application, the bail application shall
not be entertained. It is also one of the
ground to reject the bail application.
3 All] Ujjawal Singh V. State of U.P.
941
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. This bail application has been
filed by the applicant Ujjwal Singh with a
prayer that he may be released on bail in
case crime No. 86 of 2007 under sections
498-A, 323, 506, 419, 420, 504 IPC and
section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. George Town,
District Allahabad.

2. The brief facts of this case are
that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by
Sachchidanand Rai on 21.3.2007 at 0.25
A.M. in respect of the incident which had
occurred during the period of 18.5.2004 to
20.2.2007. It is alleged that the first
informant went to the house of applicant
with a proposal of the marriage of her
daughter Anita Rai. The applicant was
also present along with the family
members.
The
first
informant
was
apprised by the applicant and other coaccused persons that after obtaining the
degree of B.Tech. the applicant was
serving as engineer in Delhi, on this
consideration the first informant has
settled the marriage of his daughter with
the applicant and the date of the marriage
was fixed on 28.5.2004. The applicant
and other co-accused persons pressurized
the first informant to pay the Rs. Ten lacs,
when the first informant shown his
inability to pay the same, the threat was
extended to him. All the formalities
including the invitation cards were done
by the first informant, considering his
respect in the society he paid Rs.50,000/-
in cash and draft of Rs. Five lacs dated
18.5.2005, a draft of Rs.2.75 lacs and
Rs.1.75 lacs in cash the total amount of
Rs. Ten lacs was paid to the applicant and
his family members prior the marriage.
The ornaments of Rs.3.50 lacs and all the
articles having the valuation of Rs. Three
lacs were given in the marriage. The
marriage was solemnized on 28.5.2004.
The applicant has made a demand of Rs.
Five lacs for taking admission in M.Tech
classes for which the daughter of the first
informant was compelled to place the
demand before her father and she was
subjected to cruelty. She was, compelled
to place the demand before his elder sister
who was, living in America who sent the
Rs.2.50 lacs in the account of the first
informant and a cheque dated 26.8.2005
was given to the applicant, the same was
encashed also. The applicant has asked to
obtain the degree of the M. Tech.,
thereafter to serve as engineer. In the
meantime the daughter of the first
informant gave birth to a female child.
She was again subjected to cruelty by her
in-laws and again a demand of Rs. Ten
lacs was raised and daughter of the first
informant was asked to bring the same
amount from her father, her ornaments
and other articles have been taken by the
applicant and other co-accused persons
are were extending the threats to his
daughter. The applicant applied for bail
before
the
learned
Sessions
Judge,
Allahabad who rejected the same on
17.8.2007, being aggrieved from the order
dated
17.8.2007
the
present
bail
application
has
been
filed
by
the
applicant.

3. Heard Sri Mangla Rai and Sri
Kamlesh Shukla learned counsel for the
applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Manish
Chandra Tiwari and Sri Sanjay Singh,
learned counsel for the complainant.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that there is dispute
between husband and wife and there is no
medical examination report to show that
the wife of the applicant was ever
subjected to cruelty and there was no
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
demand of dowry. The applicant has filed
a suit for restoration of conjugal right, she
does not want to live with the applicant.
The applicant has taken the loan from his
father-in-law to bear the expenses of the
study with an assurance that same shall be
returned after getting the employment.
The applicant in jail for a considerable
period, therefore, he may be released on
bail.

5. In reply of the above contention,
it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and
learned counsel for the complainant that
the
applicant
and
other
co-accused
persons had compelled the first informant
to pay dowry, a huge amount of the
money has been taken as dowry and to
fulfill the demand of dowry the deceased
was subjected to cruelty and the applicant
has compelled his wife to leave his house
and applicant has extended the threats. In
such
circumstances,
if
applicant
is
released on bail, he shall tamper with
evidence.

6.

Considering
the
facts,
circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the applicant,
learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the
complainant and from the perusal of the
record it appears that there is dispute
between husband and wife, there is
specific allegation against the applicant
that he had demanded the dowry up to the
some extent it was fulfilled thereafter
more demand was raised to fulfill the
same. The wife of the applicant was
subjected to cruelty. The date of the
applicant's arrest/ surrender in the court
concerned has not been mentioned in the
bail application which is mandatory
requirement as provided by the High
Court rules, Allahabad under Chapter
XVIII Rule 18 sub rule (4)(b). The period
of detention is also one of the grounds to
consider the bail of the accused, if
applicant's
arrest/surrender
is
not
mentioned in the bail application, the bail
application shall not be entertained. It is
also one of the ground to reject the bail
application, therefore, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, the
applicant is not entitled for bail. The
prayer for bail the refused. At this stage.

7. It is directed that no bail
application shall be entertained by the
Registry if the date of applicant's arrest/
surrender
is
not
mentioned
therein
because it is necessarily required by the
Rule 18 sub rule (4)(b) under Chapter
XVIII
of
the
High
Court
Rules,
Allahabad.

8. A copy of this order shall be
placed before the Registrar General for
issuing the necessary direction to the
concerned section of the office where the
bail applications are entertained.

9. With the above direction this bail
application is rejected.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SINGH, J.

Jail Appeal No.1014 of 1994
&
Jail Appeal No.1015 of 1994
&
Jail Appeal No. 1016 of 1994

Pramod

...Appellant
Versus
State

...Respondent