Allahabad HC Grants Enlargement of Bail to Accused in Case of Dowry Death

Must Read

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Follow us

On the order dated 28th August 2020, Rohit Vishwas (applicant), who was accused of dowry death was granted enlargement of bail by the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad.

Facts of the Case

Rohit Vishwas fell in love with and was happily married to Mangli Vishwas (deceased) but just after 6-7 months of their marriage, she had committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire and had died on 30th November 2018. According to the record, she had attempted suicide around 8 am on the morning of the 28th of October, 2018.

After that, she was taken to the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi wherein the Executive Magistrate had gone through the case and said that she’d suffered 95% burns and had taken the statement from her on the morning of 30th October 2018 in which she’d stated that she committed suicide due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. And along with Rohit, four others were accused of the same. Rohit was booked under Sections 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting to cruelty), 304-B (Dowry death) optional 302 (Punishment for Murder) of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act, at the Gajraula Police Station in the Pilibhit District.

Submissions filed at the Court

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that according to the dying declaration collected by the Executive Magistrate, Government of NCT Delhi, from the deceased, she had committed suicide on her own and that her husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law used to keep her in a good spirit in the house but on the contrary, the statement taken from her while in the hospital states otherwise.

It was further stated that according to the doctor in the Safdarjung Hospital, Rohit himself had personally admitted her to the hospital. Initially, he had taken her to the District Hospital at Rampur but was orally referred to admit her in Safdarjung Hospital being a bigger specialised hospital where the medical facility is well-equipped. Nevertheless, Learned AGA (Additional Government Advocate) had opposed the prayer for seeking enlargement of bail. 

Court’s Decision 

Given the above submissions, the bench of learned Judge Samit Gopal had expressed that Rohit had taken efforts in saving his wife and considering the facts and the period of detention already undergone – had enlarged Rohit’s bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction by the court and had directed the following instructions: 

  • He will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
  • He will abide by the orders of the court, will attend the court on every date, and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
  • He shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as an abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders as per the law.
  • He will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case he misuses the liberty of bail during trial and to secure his presence, a proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC may be issued. If he fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with the law, under section 174-A IPC.
  • He shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for, under Section 313 of CrPC: 
    1. Opening of the case
    2. Framing of charge
    3. Recording of statement

If he doesn’t follow the aforementioned directions, the bail shall stand invalid and the Trial Court may take action accordingly under Section 229-A of IPC. The Court had also directed the concerned Trial Court to try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of Rohit.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped her in a dressing room,...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on behalf of all the minority...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women. The...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -