SUPREME COURT SETASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, LUCKNOW BENCH WHEREBY THEHIGH COURT GRANTED BAIL TO THE ACCUSED HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED VICTIM,CONVICTED BY A JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR OFFENCESUNDER SECTIONS 304B, 498A AND 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) AND SECTIONS 3AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 STAYING EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCES OFIMPRISONMENT OF THE ACCUSED BY HOLDING THAT THE FAILURE TO LODGE AN FIRCOMPLAINING OF DOWRY AND HARASSMENT BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM, IS IN OURCONSIDERED VIEW, INCONSEQUENTIAL. THE PARENTS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THEVICTIM OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT WANT TO PRECIPITATE A COMPLETE BREAK DOWN OF THEMARRIAGE BY LODGING AN FIR AGAINST ACCUSED AND HIS PARENTS, WHILE THE VICTIMWAS ALIVE.

SUPREME COURT SETASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, LUCKNOW BENCH WHEREBY THEHIGH COURT GRANTED BAIL TO THE ACCUSED HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED VICTIM,CONVICTED BY A JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR OFFENCESUNDER SECTIONS 304B, 498A AND 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) AND SECTIONS 3AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 STAYING EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCES OFIMPRISONMENT OF THE ACCUSED BY HOLDING THAT THE FAILURE TO LODGE AN FIRCOMPLAINING OF DOWRY AND HARASSMENT BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM, IS IN OURCONSIDERED VIEW, INCONSEQUENTIAL. THE PARENTS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THEVICTIM OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT WANT TO PRECIPITATE A COMPLETE BREAK DOWN OF THEMARRIAGE BY LODGING AN FIR AGAINST ACCUSED AND HIS PARENTS, WHILE THE VICTIMWAS ALIVE.

October 13, 2020


NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Preet Pal Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2020) 08 SC CK 0015

(SUPREME COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, LUCKNOW BENCH WHEREBY THE HIGH COURT GRANTED BAIL TO THE ACCUSED HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED VICTIM,CONVICTED BY A JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 304B, 498A AND 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 STAYING EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT OF THE ACCUSED BY HOLDING THAT THE FAILURE TO LODGE AN FIR COMPLAINING OF DOWRY AND HARASSMENT BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM, IS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, INCONSEQUENTIAL. THE PARENTS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE VICTIM OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT WANT TO PRECIPITATE A COMPLETE BREAK DOWN OF THE MARRIAGE BY LODGING AN FIR AGAINST ACCUSED AND HIS PARENTS, WHILE THE VICTIM WAS ALIVE.)

Comments